Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR81DT6 - Individuality
Brockwood Park, UK - 23 June 1981
Discussion with Teachers 6



0:18 Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?
1:16 Questioner: Krishnaji, can we start off talking very basically about things? Affection in relationships – how important a part does that play, especially in a community?
1:31 K: How important is affection in relationship?
1:34 Q: Especially in a community such as Brockwood.
1:45 K: Can we discuss that?
1:51 Scott Forbes: Krishnaji, I have been looking at what you have mentioned now three times in the past month, which is this holding of something with a quiet mind or with a silent mind. And this holding, which I think is something new that we have been talking about, I wondered if it is even possible to go into that, if it is.
2:21 K: Haven't we discussed it enough?
2:25 SF: Well, we keep coming up to the point where we have said, hold it like a jewel. Hold it with a silent mind.
2:36 K: Yes. What is the difficulty?
2:41 SF: Only in doing it. And it seems so central and so crucial to all that we talk about and all that we endeavour, that even if we could just come to that point again, to look at it again, it might be fruitful.
3:10 K: Sir, he asked a question just now: what place has affection in our relationship with each other? I don't know if you want to go into it. Shall we discuss that and see what it means?
3:43 Many: Yes.
3:53 K: This morning, talking to the students, having a dialogue, rather, with the students, they were saying that at Brockwood there is a hierarchical attitude. They used those words. Do this, don't do that. We know, you don't know – that attitude. And I said, in talking over together, this hierarchical attitude exists in the world – in the business world, in the religious world, in the economic world, in the scholastic world, socially. This sense of hierarchical assertion, obedience, conformity – all that exists in the world. And shouldn't that kind of discipline, shouldn't a discipline exist in Brockwood – no smoking, etc. They all agreed to that. Go to bed at ten o'clock.
5:13 Dorothy Simmons: Agreed to what? I didn't quite hear what you said.
5:17 K: Oh, I am sorry. You didn't hear right from the beginning?
5:30 DS: No, I can hear...
5:32 Shakuntala Narayan: Just the last bit.
5:34 Stephen Smith: How did they come to agree to it?
5:36 K: They began with that question.
5:39 SS: I think you ended up by saying no smoking, going to bed at ten o'clock.
5:43 K: That is, no smoking, general rules which you all accept – they have written, the parents, you know, all that. They say, we agree to that. We all want to follow it but some of us may not, but we try to. And some teachers talk to them rather roughly, others don't. I said, this hierarchical world exists out there and perhaps exists here. How will you meet it? That is the whole point. It may exist here. I say, I don't know. You should know. They said, a little bit. They slowly went away from... How would you meet this hierarchical world which puts you down all the time unless you are very clever, unless you have money, position or you can pull strings? They say, we have to put up with it more or less. And will you put up with it here too? They say, we don't want to but we have to. And how will you meet this situation where the world is like that? Here they are not trying to be hierarchical. They may say sometimes, do this, rather sharply, out of irritation, their own problems and so on. They said they couldn't answer that question, how you would meet the world which is a totally hierarchical outlook and action. How would you meet that? Unless you have your own sense of inward stability, inward strength and sense of inward dignity – nobody can push you around hierarchically. This is what we talked about this morning. And they also talked a little bit about affection. They began somewhat. So we are joining them, that is all. What place has affection? Why do you ask that question, sir?
8:36 Q: Because I have observed from my own relationships and observed the world, that somehow there is a certain confusion in the way we have this affection in us and the way we express it, the way we communicate, the way we respond to affection.
9:01 K: Do you have affection?
9:04 K: Do you have affection for somebody?

Q: Yes.
9:10 K: Is it only limited to that particular person?

Q: No.
9:17 K: Then what is the question? If I have only affection for you and not for others then the problem arises.

Q: Precisely.
9:34 K: But if I have affection, I meet people with affection. Or sometimes I may be tired, I may be irritated, so that disappears – might. But if I have that feeling of affection, it is there. I don't quite understand the full meaning of your question.
10:11 Brian Jenkins: Well, I think the facts are that as a community we do have our choice in affection.

K: Ah, is that it?
10:21 K: I like you, a few of you, and I don't like the others.
10:25 BJ: We don't say that. We say the others are difficult.
10:28 K: Rather difficult – all right. Go on. Yes, go on, sir, let's explore it. What will you do? I like two or three people, half a dozen people here, the rest I don't meet, or I meet, I am indifferent. So, what? What is the question?
10:55 SS: It is implied in what you were saying about the student meeting that we don't have affection. It is implied in what the students were saying to you this morning that we don't have affection, it seems to me.
11:06 K: That was more or less implied. Affection being care, looking after how they dress – you know, the whole concern about them.
11:25 Wendy Agnew: There might be some confusion between affection and being nice.
11:32 SS: Just being nice to them. Just being nice.
11:35 K: What do you think is the difference?
11:37 SS: What is the difference? Well, part of affection might be to point out some aspects, say he eats badly, he scatters his food all over the table.
11:57 K: They also said, the tone of your voice. Sometimes the tone may not be affectionate. We went into all that.
12:12 BJ: I think you put your finger on it, Krishnaji. Sometimes we find the ability to be affectionate but at other times we don't. And it is either because we are inattentive or irritable or whatever it is. We are not able to be affectionate.
12:27 K: All right. What is the problem then? Yes, sometimes I am. Why are you making an issue of it?
12:37 SS: I am not, actually.
12:39 Q: Because I see a lot of conflict arising from lack of affection. A lot of personal relationships and problems seem to arise just from the inability to communicate affection. I am trying to find out whether this applies to...
12:56 K: How do you communicate affection? By holding a hand?

Q: No.
13:05 K: By your voice?
13:09 Q: Perhaps. It is a part of it.
13:11 K: By your look?

Q: It is a part of it.
13:13 K: The general feeling that you may have – it is in you and it shows.

Q: Yes.
13:20 K: So what? I don't understand the problem in this. You wanted to discuss it, please.
13:35 BJ: Well, Krishnaji, would you say we all have affection here?
13:39 K: How should I know? It is up to you!
13:46 BJ: It seems apparent to me that we don't, therefore there is a problem.
13:50 K: Is it? You mean to say you have no affection?
14:02 Harsh Tanka: The problem may be loneliness that cries out for affection. The problem may really be loneliness which cries out for affection.
14:10 K: Is that it? Or is it that we are so concerned with ourselves, that takes up most of our time? Dites-moi.
14:32 David Wolfe: And then being conscious of that, we say we should be affectionate.

K: Of course.
14:41 Q: Could we also tackle this question, which I find very difficult: what is the connection between a particular relationship which one may have, where there is particular affection, and this whole challenge of a truly religious life? There is the old, old feeling that to be truly serious there won't be a particular relationship and that can lead to all sorts of destructive things as well as maybe something very true in it.
15:22 K: Are you asking, sir: I have a particular affection or love for a person –
15:29 Q: Which is the case for most people here.
15:32 K: Yes. And I may not have the same quality of affection for others.
15:41 Q: Partly, yes.
15:43 K: And therefore the others feel it, know it, that you are most affectionate with a particular person, not with the others.
15:57 Q: Part of it, yes.
16:00 K: So what is the issue?
16:02 DS: Is it possible to have affection through a sort of personal affection? I think that we get lost possibly in that, that we have affection for say a particular person and you don't really learn your affection, you learn a lot through that. And what happens is that it then gets lost in a sort of ideal and a projection of caring in a more general way, a sort of compassionate way. And we get caught in a sort of intellectual understanding of something.
16:43 K: I may love one person, and I am rather indifferent with others, about others. And is the question: is it possible to have love not only to one person but to have love, which is not one person or many? I don't know if I am making it clear. Is that possible? Is that what the question is?
17:21 DS: Yes.

BJ: Yes, I think that is the question.
17:24 K: Is that the question, sir?

Q: That is part of the question. But the sense one has of certain people who are especially dear to one, people, let's say, not in this room but there is something in the mind, not just a sense of sheer pleasure and all that obvious sort of thing, but people to whom one feels particularly close as far as human life goes. Is that in conflict fundamentally with love?
17:55 K: One is particularly attracted to one person – affectionate, love and all that – and the same attraction, same feeling doesn't exist with regard to others. Is that it?
18:11 BJ: No, I don't think it is.

Q: No, it isn't.
18:15 SS: Is that in conflict with a religious life?

K: Which?
18:18 SS: What he has just described – having a particular relationship?
18:22 K: I know, I have said it. Now, just a minute. Discuss with me.
18:39 DS: I think that is what is being asked, and I think that is where a certain coldness seems to come in.
18:48 K: Yes, I understand.
18:51 SN: But in what Bryan is describing, isn't there an element of attachment?
18:56 Q: Yes, could be. S

N: That is not really affection. When you say you are particularly attracted to one or two people and you have more to do with them than the others – I question even the quality of those one or two relationships...
19:19 K: How do you answer, what is your reaction to that question?
19:34 SN: There may be a sort of affection there but I don't think it is deep enough...
19:40 K: Look, I love my wife.
19:44 DS: Because. I love my wife for certain things.
19:48 K: No, I love my wife – don't analyse too much.
19:51 DS: Yes, but that is generally is where the trouble begins.
19:54 K: Wait, I am coming to that. I love my wife and I haven't got the same sense of love, consideration and all that for others. Right?
20:08 DS: But the fact is if you really look at it, very, very few people don't. S

N: Even love their wives.
20:14 DS: They don't even love their wives.
20:16 K: No! I love my wife.
20:22 DS: Well, it is a very big thing to say, Krishnaji. It is quite a big thing to say.
20:26 K: I am saying it. I love my wife.
20:30 DS: Yes, but you are very happily not married.
20:38 K: There I am had! Suppose.
20:45 DS: But it is the supposing part that is the difficult part.
20:49 K: Just a minute, I am trying to analyse the question. I love my wife for various reasons, etc. Apart from reasons, I love her. And I haven't got the same sense of attraction, same sense of relationship with others. And we are asking: is it possible to have love for your wife and the same quality with others? That is the question, isn't it? Is that right? Am I understanding?
21:35 Q: It is a better way of putting the question, yes.
21:39 K: Is that right? Many: Yes.
21:42 DS: But you have already, so to speak, selected your wife above all others.
21:51 K: No. Above all others?
21:56 DS: Well, above those that you didn't select. You have felt a kinship or a closeness or whatever it is, which you haven't felt with many others.
22:11 K: Now, I am just wondering if you can divide love – I am using the word carefully – between a particular person and not with the others. Is that possible? I know we say we do this, but is that love?
22:29 DS: Well, as we don't know it, that is how it seems to function.
22:34 K: I know that. I am questioning. I know how it functions. I am attached to her, my family, and that is the end of it. I don't care for others. But I am asking, can this love be so divided: mine and not mine?
22:55 BJ: Well, that is what we do, Krishnaji.
22:56 K: I know that is what is generally done. And I am saying, is that love? I am attached to you and so on and so on, and I neglect the others, I am not concerned with the others. I feel no responsibility for the others.
23:17 BJ: Well, I don't think that is really quite true for most people here, Krishnaji.
23:22 K: I am just examining it, sir.
23:24 BJ: It seems more relative. I mean, one has a great deal of what one thinks is affection for one's wife, one has less affection for the other people here.
23:36 Q: Does that follow? If one has particular affection for one person here, does it then necessarily follow that one has less or inadequate affection for other people? This is really part of what I am asking.
23:47 K: I question – if I love my wife, one person more than the others, whether the 'more' enters into love at all. I don't know if I am making myself clear. Or it is attachment, it is possession, it is sensation, it is comfort, all jumbled up and we call that love.
24:16 BJ: That is what we do, yes.

K: I know.
24:20 Doris Pratt: And yet some of the scriptures I think have said, if you don't love man whom you have seen, how can you love God whom you have not seen? They have said that on the one hand. And they have also said, the love of all things springs from the love of one. I don't know the validity of those.
24:45 K: I know the Hindus have gone into this very carefully and put it in poetic forms and sanctions. But leaving the scriptures aside, why do we divide this thing? Love of my country, love of God, love of the land, love of my wife – so on, so on, so on. Why this division? That is all I am asking.
25:16 SF: Well, Krishnaji, the love that has no object that you speak of is something which is foreign to us.
25:25 K: Yes, nonsensical.
25:27 SF: Well, it is not nonsensical because it does...
25:30 K: No, I think it is nonsensical.
25:34 DS: Why do you say that?

K: Without object.
25:37 SF: Well, you say just to love.
25:39 K: I am not saying that. I am asking, questioning – dialogue.
25:46 SF: You are questioning love with an object – I love my wife, I love my country, I love my pizza...
25:53 K: That is what we are doing.
25:55 SF: That is what we are doing and you are saying that that's not love.
25:58 K: I am questioning. Is that love?
26:02 SF: Well, you are pretty much saying that that isn't
26:03 SF: and I think we would all agree.

SS: I am not sure, actually.
26:08 SS: I am not sure I wouldn't distinguish between love of nature and love of country, for instance.
26:13 K: Love of nature, love of country, being an idea.

SS: Quite.
26:18 K: Wait. For which I am willing to kill others, etc. So, please, discuss with me, let's have a dialogue about it. Can I love one and can that love exist for all, even though I love the one? Do you follow what I am saying?

DS: Yes.
26:57 BJ: Krishnaji, are you saying that that is nonsensical to us?
27:00 K: What?

BJ: You have just used the word 'nonsensical'.
27:03 K: No, with regard to something else.
27:07 BJ: I thought Scott used the word 'foreign'.
27:14 K: Foreign?

BJ: Foreign, yes. He said the love that you are talking about is foreign.
27:18 K: I am not talking about anything. I am asking, if I love my wife why is it so restricted only to that person? And if it is so restricted is it love? You follow? That is all my question.
27:41 SF: Krishnaji, if there are any restrictions on it, is it love?
27:45 K: That is what I am asking you, sir.
27:51 Q: What is the relation to energy and love?
27:59 K: No, just hold a minute, don't let's go off into energy. That may be the ultimate thing. Don't let's enter into that for the moment. I have a feeling – I may be wrong – that if one has that kind of love it is indivisible. That is all I am stating. I may be wrong. If I love you it isn't I don't love others. But if I say, I love you, I don't love others, is that love real? Or it is attachment, possession, sex, etc., confined to one person.
29:11 Q: If one says one loves one particular person, is one using the word correctly? Is one using the word correctly by saying one loves a particular person as opposed to anybody else? Is that what is actually happening in the relationship?
29:32 K: You tell me, sir.
29:34 Q: I think we still need to be very slow and careful at this point, because there are two things which happen which are obviously wrong – at least obviously wrong to me, and yet they do happen quite a bit. One is an attached relationship with somebody else, a couple, and I say ok, yes that is quite clear. But another thing which seems to me to be just as wrong is people without affection even talking about a relationship like that in these terms, that they start telling people who have at least got some glimmer of something, and that happens a lot, and I think that they may be tied in with what we were saying about being without affection. And we really have to go carefully here not to throw something out.
30:17 SS: Could you say that again, Bryan?

Q: Yes, I haven't understood.
30:21 SS: You are saying people without a special...
30:23 Q: It is easy to point out to people how their particular affection which they may have a tiny bit of in a couple is obviously inadequate and partial because it is not complete and perfect love. It is quite easy to point that out to people. But if you don't have affection yourself as you point it out, you may in fact be in a worse state than the people you are trying to help, and you may actually make it very difficult for affection to develop at all in the community.
30:54 K: Would you answer my question? I am just investigating it. Why have we divided this thing like that? To the particular, to my country, to nature, to birds, to poor, unfortunate, deformed people, and so on – why have we divided this thing like this?
31:22 SN: I think it is partly society that has through the ages stressed the family unit and then the village and then the country and the nation.
31:34 K: Go into it. Find out. Why have we done this?
31:38 Q: I think we are simply too complicated for affection to have a chance. We are afraid of it. We don't move that way, not really.
31:47 K: Not really, we don't do that.
31:50 SF: From what I can see, we don't divide love.
31:56 K: Then why did you say, can I love one person and not...
32:00 SF: Well, just wait, because what it seems to me we do is that we have our particular relationship which is, one cares a little bit but there is also attachment, etc. But the love that you speak of...

K: I don't speak of anything.
32:16 SF: Well, the love that you have spoken of, it is got nothing to do with that, that is not divided.
32:24 K: No, I want to find out – just listen. Mother Theresa goes to India and loves those poor children. She is Catholic, you follow? – the idea of mission, devoted to Jesus and all that. The love of God translated into looking after poor children. I love my wife, my family, my children. I am concentrated there. I have general affection, I am tolerant, I am kind, generous, but my whole feeling is limited there. Right? I am asking myself why human beings throughout history have done this, divided life into particular, not general – you follow what I mean? – my country for which I am willing to die and my God for whom I am going to serve. Why this division? I wish you would go into it a little bit.
33:44 SF: Krishnaji, may I ask this question? This love that one has for one particular person, if you took that love and simply multiplied it...
33:58 K: You can't. That is all intellectual stuff.
34:00 SF: Well, the point is, is it qualitatively the same as this other love, just quantitatively different?

K: I understand all that, sir. You see, you are still talking in terms of division – quantitative, qualitative and so on. I am just asking. Please, inquire with me into it. Why do we do this?
34:29 DW: Sir, when I say I love my wife, even that love isn't continuous because when she pokes me in the ribs...
34:38 K: Of course, I get angry. DW: I hate her.
34:42 DW: So it isn't a continuous love.

K: Quite right, sir. But a much deeper question: why? May I begin it differently, inquire into it? Do you feel that you are the representative of all humanity? That you are – not representative, I will withdraw that word. That you are the whole of mankind. Aren't you? I think this is the root of it, let's get into it.
35:50 Raman Patel: I think one feels that occasionally.
35:53 K: No, not think – it is not a product of thought. Look, your consciousness is the rest of mankind's consciousness. Do you admit that? Come on, you are all intellectual birds. Come on, let's deal with it.
36:22 SS: I think one experiences it or one may have experienced it...
36:27 K: No, logically go into it. My consciousness: suffering, pain, anxiety, sorrow, misery, confusion, uncertainty, desire for security, belief, faith, God, my country – that is my consciousness. Right? Stick to that for the moment. And the man who lives ten miles away or a thousand miles has got exactly the same quality, same thing: uncertainty, searching for security. Right? So, his consciousness is like mine.
37:16 WA: But, Krishnaji, I don't think we see it like that. Although intellectually I can see that...
37:24 K: Wait – do you see it intellectually?
37:26 WA: I can see it intellectually.
37:28 K: Well, hold on a minute. Do you see it intellectually?
37:32 WA: It seems to be obvious intellectually.
37:36 K: You are agreeing with words.
37:40 WA: Well, isn't that what intellectual means?
37:43 K: Go into it a little more. When you say, I accept intellectually, what do you mean by that?
37:51 WA: Well, I mean that I can see sometimes that when I react to a situation – say I am in pain about a situation, I can sometimes see in somebody else too that they are reacting in exactly the same way.
38:07 K: So is it an intellectual concept which you are accepting?
38:13 SS: I think in a sense it requires affection to see this. No, look, the first impression is, I meet this man, he speaks a different language, he eats frogs legs, he is a Frenchman – and I don't eat frogs legs, I speak a different language.
38:33 K: IRA.
38:35 SS: So that is the immediate surface impression.
38:39 K: No, go deeper than that – linguistic differences, clothes differences, and so on – go a little bit below that. Is not your consciousness like the rest of humanity?
38:59 BJ: Krishnaji, I don't feel really, basically I am any different from the man in Petersfield or the man in Bombay.
39:04 K: No, sir, it is not 'basically'. Go into it a little bit – I wish you would. Do you feel or recognise the truth that your consciousness is like the rest of mankind? You don't discuss with me. Is it so? Is your consciousness different from Mr Smith in London?
39:48 Q: Not really, no.
39:50 K: No, don't say not really – that is just a verbal statement, it means nothing.
39:58 Q: It is so. What you are saying is true. There is no escape from it. We have a different name and all that.
40:06 K: If there is no escape from it, is it in your heart, this feeling?
40:18 WA: I find it very difficult though. I find it difficult to feel that I am like somebody.
40:24 K: I am not saying you are like somebody. Of course not, I am not like somebody. You are a woman, I am a man, you are shorter, you are taller...
40:35 WA: No, I don't mean physically. I mean in terms of, say, a politician or something that I really don't respect. I find it very difficult to feel that basically I am like that person.
40:48 K: No, that politician, his consciousness is almost similar like ours, only he has gone in a particular direction. You know all that, I don't have to explain all this.
40:59 SN: Yes, one can see that the politician suffers and I suffer too.
41:03 K: That is all. That is exactly what I am saying.
41:07 RP: The objects may be different but the basic thing is the same.
41:11 K: Now, do you feel this, or is it just an intellectual concept which has no reality at all? Do you feel this?
41:26 BJ: Krishnaji, I don't think I feel this, because I think that when I see that politician, just the fact of seeing him and looking at his eyes, I have judged him already.
41:35 K: No, I am not talking about judgement. Please, don't move away, just hold it for a minute. Do you see that your consciousness – you know what I mean by consciousness: all the things that you think, feel, believe, anxious, all that is your consciousness. Right?

Q: Yes.
42:01 K: And the man who lives in Japan has the same things you have: uncertainty, anxiety, security, sorrow, fear, beliefs in God, Buddha, or not.
42:17 Q: Krishnaji, my consciousness is the same as that of mankind, in the sense that it wants to consider itself separate. It is the same in the sense that I am separate.
42:34 K: We are conditioned by our culture, by our religion, by our social reactions and so on, education, to think that our consciousness is totally separate from others. Right? I am questioning that. I say it is not that. Argue, discuss with me, sir. I say that is an illusion.
43:06 DS: But you are saying that makes it very different. Your saying that makes that consciousness very different. It is taking it really a step further, deeper.
43:19 K: I am beginning to go slowly.
43:21 DS: Because mankind has and does suffer all over the world the same, so to speak, but your saying what you are saying makes it different.
43:31 K: I don't quite follow.
43:33 DS: You're saying: what we have in common, we could see from that, we could learn from that, and we could learn to love in a totally different way.
43:45 K: If one really feels that in your blood, not in your brain cells, in your blood, in the depth of your heart and all that, then what is love? You follow what I am leading up to? No, you are not meeting me. I may live with a person called wife or whatever it is, but the feeling that I am the rest of humanity, including my wife, makes a tremendous difference and responsibility. Perhaps that may be the real question about love.
44:46 RP: Krishnaji, when you put it that way, my response is not so much of wanting to know what is love but a comprehension that we all are the same.
44:57 K: No, don't put it we are all the same because we are not – you are shorter, I am taller, or you are tall and I am short. Inwardly, psychologically we are similar. Now, if you really feel that, or you don't feel it, you merely say, no, I am not, I am totally an individual, then we can discuss, but if you all agree then it is finished. You may verbally agree but inwardly you have said, I am an individual.
45:38 Q: Krishnaji, I feel it is the nature of consciousness to divide itself. I want to have a dialogue with you, sir.
45:45 K: Maybe, but I am not talking about the nature of consciousness, why it divides, I know we can go into that, but first I want to be clear that we see together that our consciousness is the rest of mankind.
46:02 Q: In so far as it divides itself from the rest of mankind.
46:06 K: Yes, include that.
46:11 Q: It is something tremendous. If you say include divisiveness as a part of the rest of mankind, right, we are divided, we are the rest of mankind.
46:26 K: Why do you bring that in?
46:29 Q: Because each time you make this statement that our consciousness is humanity, your consciousness is the human consciousness, it seems to me it is in the nature of human consciousness as it is, to divide.
46:45 K: No, wait a minute. I won't accept that.
46:49 Q: That is how it is operating. I would like to see why you don't accept it.
46:53 K: I will go into it.

Q: Good.
46:57 K: Because we have been conditioned from childhood that you are a separate individual, separate entity, your soul is different from mine, your atman, and so on.
47:12 Q: Is it only because people have said this from time that I believe in it? You are saying that the consciousness considers itself separate because it is conditioned.
47:23 K: Partly.

Q: What is the other part? Because I don't think it is only because it is conditioned.
47:28 K: Wait, sir. First see that.

Q: Yes, partly.
47:33 K: Sir, go into it step by step.

Q: Agreed with you – partly.
47:37 K: Partly. Religions have said this. Everything around me is saying that you are a separate individual. Right? So I live like that, I think like that, I feel like that, I love like that, I die like that – you follow? My whole life is based on that because of education, because of family name, because religions have said it: we all are united in God, but fight like hell on earth. So we are so deeply conditioned that we accept this as normal. You come along and tell me it is not like that. You point out carefully, – it is not like that. But do I merely verbally accept it or do I feel it in my bones that I am the rest of humanity?
49:21 Q: When you say that the consciousness has accepted this individuality, is it only a mechanical acceptance?
49:28 K: Of course. Not mechanical – it has been trained that way.
49:34 Q: Which means mechanical.
49:35 K: No, don't use the word 'mechanical' – it has been trained.
49:38 Q: There is something in the consciousness that has made it want individuality.
49:45 K: Because if I have been trained the other way I would say, nonsense.
49:52 Q: And still individually would remain. There is a tradition in India, there is a certain religion, certain sects in India which do not talk of individuality.

K: I know.
50:07 Q: Where the conditioning is that you are not individual.
50:10 K: Of course, that is the opposite.
50:12 Q: So, Krishnaji, I am not behaving like an individual just because I have been conditioned mechanically to believe I am an individual.
50:19 K: Otherwise how are you behaving?
50:23 Q: I am saying that it seems it is the nature of consciousness.
50:27 K: You keep on asserting: it is the nature of consciousness to divide itself. I understand. That is part of the consciousness.
50:39 Q: No, I am asking you: how do you say this? You said it is conditioning.
50:47 K: Isn't it?
50:48 Q: I am saying there is an opposite conditioning.
50:50 K: Yes, that is also another conditioning.
50:54 Q: So conditioning is not the reason, that means. Something else exists.
50:59 K: No. Show me.
51:03 Q: Krishnaji, it is very clear. If conditioning is the reason why the consciousness considers itself conditioning of individuality...
51:12 K: No, sir. Conditioning is that I am separate from everybody else. And the other condition is: I am not separate from anybody else.
51:26 Q: So even there the separation exists.
51:28 K: Of course.
51:30 Q: So why do you say it is because of this conditioning that I am separate?

K: What are you talking about?
51:35 DW: It is not this conditioning, it is conditioning, any conditioning.
51:40 K: It is just conditioning here, conditioning there. What is the difficulty, Rajesh? I don't quite see it.
51:51 Q: Krishnaji, I see consciousness dividing itself. I see it. It happens.
51:57 K: That is because you have been trained.
52:02 Q: Why do you say trained?
52:07 K: You have been conditioned, your brain has been programmed to think that you are a separate individual.
52:17 Q: Ok, I will take it differently. When did this begin? When did this false moment begin in humanity?
52:29 K: Probably from the first experience.
52:33 Q: Then at that time who conditioned it?
52:36 K: The first experience, I am telling you – my wife, my property. What is the difficulty in this? You are not seeing all this because you have another concept about it. Is that so?
53:06 Q: No, I don't see when you say that the consciousness is the consciousness of mankind.
53:12 K: You don't see it.

Q: I see it here.
53:16 K: If you see if there, it is just an intellectual game.
53:19 Q: Right, so I don't want to accept either that or your statement.
53:25 K: I am not making any statement, I am pointing out to you.
53:30 Q: Krishnaji, that is a statement.

K: No.

Q: Why is it not?
53:33 K: Look at it. I said look, it is not a statement. You see how you are translating into words? I said look at the suffering of people in India, Japan, Russia, America, Europe or here. And you also apparently suffer. There is a great similarity, a flow of similarity. That is all I am saying.
54:02 Q: I accept it.
54:06 K: Which is your consciousness.
54:08 Q: Yes.

K: That is all.
54:12 Q: No.

K: Wait, sir – see that. Therefore you are not an individual. I know we like to think we are. Because I have a talent to write, I am full of individuality. I am good at something and, by Jove, I am better than anybody else. So, do you – my question is – not only intellectually, reasoned, intellectual understanding, and that understanding, does it penetrate deep and say, look, this is what I feel. So I am no longer individual. That is a big pill to swallow for most people. And it is that individual that says I love my wife, and I will be kind to you but it is not the same as my love for my wife. And we keep this going all the time. Right? Agree? Not 'agree' – dialogue. And I am just pointing out, I am not making any statement. I am saying human beings through centuries have been conditioned, trained, educated to the concept that they are individual.
56:06 BJ: Krishnaji, the man in Petersfield is attached to his wife. I am attached to my wife. For him the situation is hopeless. Now, why don't I therefore conclude for me it is also hopeless?
56:25 K: No, I don't want to discuss – if you don't mind – that narrow surface. Spread it out and look at it. Look at the world as a whole. Wars. Wars about nationalities, power, position, Russia is stronger than America, America is stronger than Russia, this competition, this division of religions, political divisions, economic divisions, my country and your country, my God and your God, my belief and your belief, my sorrow and not your sorrow, my pleasure – mine, private and not yours. You feel the same way: my private pleasure. So this goes on, has been going on for millennia, and I say there is something totally wrong in this. And I say why? Why has mankind done this?
57:46 Q: Sir, isn't thinking always an individual process?
57:56 K: Thought is part of consciousness. Thought has divided, done all this. I don't want to expand it too much. So do I feel, do you feel this earth is ours? Not British earth, American earth, etc. – earth is ours. And therefore we have to live on the earth and not divide, divide, divide, destroying each other. That is all. And if I divide my love: my wife, and sympathy for others, kindliness – I have done the greatest harm. You follow? But if I feel that I am really the rest of mankind, I am the mankind – God, don't you see this? What do you object to, sir? Come on, discuss with me, have a dialogue about it.
59:07 WA: I think it is very difficult. I can't object to that but I don't feel it, I still feel an individual.
59:13 K: Why don't you feel it?
59:16 WA: Why? I am just trying to think why.
59:18 K: Go on, don't stop there. Ask, go into it.
59:22 SS: I think because we have our own lives, we have our own responsibilities.
59:25 K: Yes, sir, like the other fellow.
59:30 SS: And when we approach a meeting, we try to pool what we have seen. For instance, when we as a staff meet and we want to talk about something we pool what we have seen. Our point of departure is that, but then the other is theoretical.
59:45 K: All right, let's approach it differently. Thought is common to all of mankind.
59:53 K: Right?

SS: Yes.

K: Thought.
59:59 K: You express thought in one way and I express thought in another way, but it is still thought.
1:00:08 SS: It is the same process.

K: Same process.
1:00:15 K: No?

WA: The process is the same but the way that it comes out is different.
1:00:20 K: Yes, but we stick to the difference. We don't say, it is the same process, and hold it and go on. You see, I am brow-beating, you are not...
1:00:42 Q: Krishnaji, seeing this, what seems to happen is in my case, I don't feel anything. The whole business of thought doesn't apply because there is nothing to think about. There is nobody to think. But I don't feel an overwhelming compassion for the whole earth as one.
1:01:04 K: Wait, I don't talk about compassion. You see, you are moving always.
1:01:10 Q: Nothing is what I feel.
1:01:17 K: If you don't feel this you cannot have compassion.
1:01:24 Q: Sorry, could you put that again?
1:01:26 K: I mean, like a lady who is a Catholic, who loves Jesus and the commandments, etc., and goes to help in India, but she is basically a Catholic and so divides – you follow?

Q: Yes.
1:01:52 SS: So you are saying she contributes to conditioning by doing that.

K: Yes.
1:02:02 K: The Catholic church would recognise her. If a Hindu did exactly the same thing as that – of course not. And vice versa. The Hindu wouldn't recognise. I am questioning why you don't feel this.
1:02:36 DS: About what?
1:02:37 K: You don't feel that you are mankind.
1:02:48 DS: Because we love individually, because we separate it off.
1:02:53 K: Which means what? That you refuse to see something that is true. Because I have been conditioned as a Brahmin with all the etc., and I hold to that conditioning, and I am separate from everybody else.
1:03:21 SF: But why do we do that?
1:03:24 K: Find out, dialogue, go into it.
1:03:28 DS: Well, the fact is we are different but we emphasise the difference rather than the sameness.
1:03:34 K: Yes.
1:03:49 DS: I don't think one learns to love, but at the same time...
1:03:54 K: It must come from a totally different source.
1:03:56 DS: I agree, Krishnaji, but how does one begin from the instrument that one is, if you like?
1:04:03 K: No, you can't. You have to change the instrument.
1:04:07 WA: You see, this is what I don't understand. What is it that changes the instrument?
1:04:14 K: Wait a minute. What changes the instrument? Right? I have been going along north and somebody comes along and says, that leads nowhere, go south. Now, would you pay attention to him? He proves it to you, he shows it to you, step by step, going north means nothing.
1:04:43 WA: But, you see, in something practical I am not invested in it and I can see that. I can see how it clicks into place, but when it comes to something like individualism there is something so strongly invested in all that there is something that doesn't seem to move. So then I think to myself, well, what is it that clicks?
1:05:04 K: You have stated that. Now what will you do about it?
1:05:07 WA: That is where I get stuck.
1:05:09 K: No. You have stated it in ten different ways. Move from there.
1:05:15 SF: Krishnaji, could I state something that happens? To use your analogy that one is walking north. This person comes along and says, it is useless, there is nothing there, go south. One turns around because one sees the truth, one sees the beauty of it, there is something that is communicated, and a few steps later one finds that one's heading north again and you don't even know that you turned.
1:05:47 K: Look, if you see danger, physical danger, you don't play with it.
1:05:54 SF: It seems that it is more complex than that.
1:05:56 K: No. Keep it simple, for God's sake.
1:06:02 DS: The conditioning goes very deeply.
1:06:05 K: So let's begin again. Are you aware of your conditioning? Am I aware of my conditioning as a Christian, Buddhist, my family, conditioning in all kinds of ways – am I aware of it? My conditioning is, I am being programmed like a computer.
1:06:27 Q: What do you mean aware of it? Because if you are talking about conditioning that goes back thousands of years and in all different directions, religious and family and all different kinds of things, how are you are aware of something like that?
1:06:44 K: How am I aware that I am a Christian? Right? Are you asking that question?
1:06:53 Q: Well, I am asking about the whole of it. I am not sure I am a Christian but I wouldn't say I am aware of my conditioning.
1:07:04 K: So you have eliminated certain conditionings – no Christian, no American, no this and that and the other. Are you still conditioned?
1:07:14 Q: I still think in terms of individual.
1:07:16 K: There – now take that. Do you accept that conditioning? Do you see it as a conditioning?
1:07:26 Q: I don't think so. I don't see it as operates.
1:07:31 K: Wait a minute, please. Don't say you don't see it. You saw that you are conditioned as a Christian. You rejected that. Right? You saw it.
1:07:43 Q: Well, it never made sense, you see.
1:07:46 K: It doesn't matter. It made no sense so you rejected it. Now, is not individuality your conditioning? Please, bear in mind that may be the truth, that you are individual. What I am saying may be totally wrong.
1:08:19 Q: No, it makes sense.
1:08:20 K: No, it doesn't make sense.
1:08:24 Q: It does make sense though.
1:08:30 K: I object to your saying it makes sense.
1:08:33 Q: Why?
1:08:36 K: Because it doesn't make sense in your life. Please follow this. You rejected being an American, Christian or a Hindu. You said, no, it is silly. Right? Now, someone comes along and says, look, you really are not an individual, and he gives you very careful explanations, logical, and yet you keep that. You rejected one and you hold on to the other. Why?
1:09:20 SS: Perhaps the feeling is that I won't survive if I am not an individual. Everybody else is an individual.
1:09:27 K: Are you frightened of not being individual? Individual means your name, your form, your look, your idea. If you abandon that, what are you? So, unconsciously you say, I am still an individual. I won't let go. There, when you say, I am not a Christian, well, who cares?

SS: It is easy.
1:10:05 K: There are 200 million Russians who say, well, who cares? You follow what I am pointing out? We do the easiest things first, but we don't go down and do the most difficult. You follow? So, do you feel that you are the rest of mankind? My God. You see what takes place? My wife is the rest of mankind. You don't see it.
1:11:07 WA: There is just something that won't accept that.
1:11:12 K: This is not something to be accepted.
1:11:15 WA: Well, okay, or see it or something.
1:11:17 K: You don't accept the sky.
1:11:21 WA: No, but I can feel as soon as you mention individualism and getting rid of it, there is something tremendous that happens inside of you.
1:11:27 K: That is it. You see, you are translating in terms of acceptance. You don't accept that thing as a tree – it is a tree. You don't say, I will accept it as a tree. You look at a house and say... You follow what I am saying? You are now reducing it to accepting it. Something logical, sane, you accept, but it has no validity at all. You see, I think this is a fundamental issue. This is real revolution. Now, when that feeling arises – not arises – when that feeling is, then what is your relationship with your wife and with a person not your wife?
1:12:31 WA: Sorry, which feeling, Krishnaji? When you said the feeling, which feeling?
1:12:39 K: You realise the truth that you are mankind.
1:12:45 Q: And that your wife is the rest of mankind.
1:12:48 K: Yes. Mankind is me, I am mankind.
1:13:06 Q: So you don't get rid of your love for your wife in order to understand – that state is not a problem anymore.
1:13:14 K: When you feel that you are the rest of mankind what has happened?
1:13:25 Q: There is no me and mine.
1:13:29 K: No. You are translating it all into terms of separation. I love – my wife, my neighbour. I love. There is love in me. It is not: I love my wife, I don't love others. What is the difficulty in this?
1:14:04 WA: I don't think we have got to the root of the cause of separation. I don't think we have got to the root of separation, why it is we feel so separate.
1:14:14 K: Is it obstinacy?
1:14:18 WA: You see, when you say to me, move, I don't want to move.
1:14:22 K: All right – what moves you? Moves in the sense your feelings, everything – what moves you?
1:14:34 WA: Something that I see is right to do.
1:14:39 SS: Something that is true to life, in a sense.
1:14:42 K: No, tell me what moves you. Beauty? The sunset? A lovely tree? What moves you? Sex?
1:15:04 Q: All of those things.
1:15:07 K: Ah, don't reduce it to all of them. What moves you – so that you say, By Jove, this is what I have to do? What moves you? Like that lady who went to India, she was moved tremendously by a belief. She went through all kinds of danger, etc. Apparently nothing moves you.
1:15:39 WA: It seems all sorts of different things move you, actually.
1:15:41 SS: Well, something moved us to come here.
1:15:44 K: All right. That moved you. What has happened to that?
1:15:55 SS: I think it is still there.

K: No, the feeling – not, I read some book that has moved me and I come here.
1:16:08 BJ: Well, it seems to come and go. Sometimes we are rather thick.
1:16:12 K: Mr Jenkins, you are not meeting it. Of course, sometimes, but the feeling of something. This morning when I was talking to those boys and girls I felt tremendously moved – I said, my God! I was tempted to say, I will stay here permanently. Which of course is not my job. You follow? Aren't you moved by anything? Or it has moved you and you have stopped, you have come and it has stopped – is that it?
1:17:04 SS: No, I don't think that is it, really.
1:17:08 K: Then tell me, what are you moved by?
1:17:12 DW: That analogy you give: if somebody has come too close to the edge of a cliff and you see them, you can grab them and pull them back. You are moved by that very quickly. But I wonder if we see this with such clarity that we can convey it and move others.
1:17:34 Q: What do you mean when you say moved?
1:17:39 K: Oh no, you know what I mean by being moved. In the sense, you want to do something so tremendously. I may be using the wrong word – 'move'. A sense of total commitment to something. I don't quite understand – perhaps I am not clear, or dull – I don't quite understand why human beings have divided love. Tell me, you are all scholars, you are all experts, tell me why. Love of God and love of man.
1:18:59 SS: We do seem to have done it though, Krishnaji. We do seem to have done it.
1:19:05 K: Do you think?

SS: We seem to have done it.
1:19:08 K: I know – why?
1:19:11 SS: That is the way it is seen, probably. It is probably a lack of depth of perception, I would say.
1:19:18 K: Is that so?
1:19:20 SS: I think it is so that it is lack of depth of perception.
1:19:24 K: Then what do you do about it? Do you remain there, lack of perception, repeat lack of perception?
1:19:31 SS: One doesn't want to.
1:19:32 K: No, not doesn't want to – what are you going to do about it? You are moved by that.

SS: Yes. On the other hand I see that I can't will myself into perception.
1:19:42 K: No, of course not. You say, By Jove, is it lack of perception? You are involved in it, you want to find out. Move from there. Is it that we are so indifferent to our conditioning? Deeply?
1:20:32 Q: I am not sure what you mean.
1:20:37 K: It is very easy to push off, throw away: I am a Hindu. That is very easy. But deeply, I am conditioned as whatever I was, and hold to that. Is that our problem? Why? Why do you hold on to it? That may be causing all the mischief – you follow what I mean? All the trouble, all these tremendous arguments about nothing.
1:21:25 WA: Perhaps because it is all I know. All I know is that.
1:21:34 K: All right. Don't you want to see if that is all you know, see if that is real, false? Don't you want to find out, move? Do you say, that is all I know, and stay?
1:21:51 WA: No, but I seem to go round in circles.
1:21:53 K: There you are. And you are training those students to do exactly the same thing. Please, I am not haranguing you, I am just pointing out. Apparently that doesn't move you. If I feel that I am the rest of mankind – oh, the whole field has completely undergone a change. You can pretend, you can imagine, you can have visions – that is all nonsense. So where are you, sir? You raised that question: love. Where are you at the end of this, an hour and a quarter, dialogue or haranguing, whatever you like to call it? What is your state of mind after hearing all this? Is it that we are frightened to stand alone when everything, everybody is saying, you are wrong, what we are doing is right? Is that it?
1:24:02 RP: I think that is what it boils down to, Krishnaji.
1:24:04 K: I am asking you. When I say, I am not an individual, and I really mean it, and everybody around me says, we are individuals, to stand alone, to be indifferent to what they say, solitude – what? Is that what is frightening most of us?
1:24:26 RP: I think so.
1:24:28 K: I don't know. You think, sir. Is that frightening you?
1:24:31 RP: Yes.
1:24:35 K: Then what do you do about that fear? Just say, I am frightened, and remain there?
1:24:47 RP: The feeling one gets is that you can only just be patient with that feeling. One doesn't quite know what to do about it.
1:25:03 K: You know what to do about it the moment you face it. I have to build a house – you face it. Change the bathroom – you face it.
1:25:19 RP: Maybe we are not completely clear about it.
1:25:21 K: No – why? I wish you could discuss what you are moved by, what life means to you deeply. A little corner in a vast earth, a little corner with a little husband – you follow? Come on, what does life mean to you?
1:26:26 BJ: I think we are moved by something more than that. We are moved by the students here.

K: What does life mean to you, sir?
1:26:33 BJ: We are moved by the fact that the students need care and attention.
1:26:37 K: No, I am not talking of students. What does life mean to you? From the moment you are born till you die, what does it all mean?
1:26:50 Q: It depends on what mood one is in.
1:26:54 K: Mean, significance – what does it all mean? It means, what is all this about?
1:27:06 BJ: Krishnaji, I am not sure that is something you can put into words.
1:27:12 K: Oh yes you can.
1:27:19 BJ: Well, you may be able to.
1:27:22 K: Just look at it. Ask yourself this question.
1:27:34 SS: I can see fairly clearly what it is not about.
1:27:39 K: What is that?
1:27:40 SS: Well, speaking for myself, not being in business, not being in politics.
1:27:47 K: That is like the leaves on a small tree. That is nothing.

SS: I know. It is a drop in the ocean.
1:27:54 K: Go beyond that.

SS: Well, this is the thing. It is the going beyond it that is the problem.
1:27:59 K: Just look at it. Take business, politics, religion, society – take the whole thing into your arms, look at it. What does it all mean?
1:28:20 Q: Krishnaji, I want to ask you one question. When one talks to you and listens to you, and really listens, searches, a certain movement takes place – the way you are saying move – something moves. Is it possible to move on one's own?
1:28:45 K: Of course. He has been saying that for years: be a light to yourself.
1:28:52 Q: But what seems to happen is, because that which is one's illusion, it is like a blind area for oneself and all that one thinks, all that one does, any attempt to make that movement remains in that same suffering, until somebody from outside the circle points out.
1:29:17 K: Look, I know. I am asking you a question, Rajesh, if I may: what does all this mean to you, the whole of it?
1:29:26 Q: I ask it myself many times.
1:29:28 K: Ask it now. The whole movement of mankind: their misery, their sacrifice, their love, their sorrow, their competitiveness, their arrogance, their desire for power, position, status, money, sex – what does it all mean?
1:29:58 Q: Nothing.

K: No, don't say that. You see? It must mean something otherwise they wouldn't be doing all this blasted stuff.
1:30:25 Q: It seems a meaningless rotation about...
1:30:29 K: No, Rajesh, you are not answering.
1:30:33 Q: It must have a meaning.
1:30:35 K: You are not going into it. That is what I am objecting to.
1:30:38 SS: It means security, surely, in some sense.
1:30:41 K: Security, all right. Is that all?
1:30:43 SS: Accumulation of security.
1:30:45 K: You are seeking your security, I am seeking my security – separate security. Can security ever be separate when we are living together?
1:30:58 RP: Krishnaji, the very thing we are looking for, we are destroying it through looking at it individually.
1:31:06 K: That is right. That is what I am pointing out, if I may. You are still thinking of yourself as a separate entity.
1:31:28 Q: How do you take this jump from the question – what does it mean? – to this gentleman now? I do not see the connection.
1:31:42 K: Nor do I. He raised that question, that is why.
1:32:02 RP: Krishnaji, very strangely, one feels that if one is to give up one's separateness.
1:32:10 K: Ah, you are not giving up anything.
1:32:13 RP: Well, one sees the process of...
1:32:15 K: Ah! No, you are wrong. You don't give up anything, for God's sake.
1:32:21 RP: Maybe I am not putting it correctly, but the feeling is one sees this very separateness is...
1:32:27 K: Not 'sees it' – that is just a logical conclusion and then you say, that is an idea which I must carry out. That is still wrong. You are falling into the same old pattern. That leads to something else, which is perception, seeing. Seeing the truth and that truth, he will do something. But if you keep on arguing, how to feel that we are all one, it sounds ridiculous.
1:33:19 RP: Can we go a bit into that? Maybe that is the area we are not very clear. Could we go a bit into that?
1:33:25 K: I have gone into it, sir. Why do we hold to our individuality when it is creating such havoc in the world? That is obvious, isn't it? That is, I am an individual, my country is individual, my family is individual, my talent is individual, my experience is individual. The Arab says this, the Jew says this, the Hindus, so we are at each other's throat. Why don't we see that to live that way is something barbarous?
1:34:18 RP: I think the fear of all that is that, me seeing that doesn't necessarily guarantee me a security.
1:34:28 K: Sir, who is going to guarantee security? Mrs Thatcher can't. God can't. Who is going to assure you security? You see, when I seek security as an individual, I am going to create havoc in the world. Which we are doing now. It is the security of mankind. I won't go into that. You have got a bad cold, haven't you? After having said all this, where are you? If I may ask.
1:35:39 SF: Well, at the moment, Krishnaji, you asked a very interesting question and then we pulled away from it.
1:35:46 K: What was that?
1:35:50 SF: All of man, all that we are doing, all of this, this life, what is the significance of it, what is the point of it?
1:35:57 K: That comes a little later. After hearing all this, do you still think and act and feel a separate entity? I wish you would go into it.
1:36:16 SS: For the time being we would probably say no.
1:36:19 K: Ah!

SS: I know, but you see,
1:36:23 SS: it reveals itself in action.
1:36:26 K: Sir, this is a tremendous question, it is not just an afternoon dialogue. This will totally revolutionise the world. You see, on this basis each nation, each individual is competing. Right? Competition is destroying the world. No? America is competing with Russia to be top dog. I don't have to go into all that – you know it. The ancient Hindus – as far as I understand, subject to correction – said that life is one.
1:37:49 Q: Life is?

K: One.
1:37:57 K: But they didn't live it, it just became a theory. Perhaps one man felt it and the rest just believed it and said, yes, but we live in the modern world therefore we must kill each other, we must do everything. But it is a very good idea, it is a great ideal. It ends there.
1:38:20 DS: One man has said that again now, you have said that. One man said that again now and we came here, we were moved to come here. And really what we are discovering, we are still doing that same thing.

K: Yes.
1:38:36 DS: So what do we do, do we just stop doing it? Stop the whole thing?
1:38:41 K: That is what I am asking: what do you do? Argue, discuss, dialogue? We have done all that. What do I do? If you tell me I am a liar, I do something about it. Right? I say, why am I lying? I am frightened. I go into fear. You follow what I mean? I won't have in myself this contradiction, etc., so I go at it. Not say, I won't tell a lie, which becomes absurd, but I want to know what is behind my telling a lie. Protect myself, fear, etc. So I say, all right. I don't say: I lie, and what am I to do about it?
1:39:51 Q: Sir, when you do that, go into a question like that more and more, that means that you know yourself more and more?
1:39:58 K: No, sir. Or you have a total insight into that. It is finished after that.
1:40:11 Q: What is the difference?
1:40:15 K: Insight is not analysis. Insight is not step by step examination. Insight is not searching the cause of it and killing the cause. Insight is a direct perception.
1:40:43 RP: What is the difference between what you just said and knowing oneself from moment to moment?
1:40:51 K: Ah, I am not talking of that. You don't want to know from moment to moment. Sir, just listen to this. Have you got an insight into anything? Insight into religion? Insight into the whole activity of discipline, conformity, imitation? Insight, so that you know something is far greater than mere conformity – insight. Newton had an insight – right? It was only partial. Poets have insights – partially. Can we have insight into the whole psychological world?
1:41:52 WA: Krishnaji, that question, when you say can one have an insight – when you ask that question, can one have an insight into something? There seems to be something strange.
1:42:03 K: I said, have an insight – not 'can you' – have an insight into yourself.
1:42:12 WA: It seems to me someone like Newton, for example, it just suddenly came.
1:42:17 K: All right, how did it come?

SS: He was preparing the grounds.
1:42:22 WA: He asked questions about certain things.
1:42:24 K: Yes, ask questions now about your individuality. You see? There we are – you stop there.
1:42:35 RP: We don't want to do that.
1:42:37 SS: I think it is asking the right question that is the difficulty. I could say, how does it come about?
1:42:42 K: A right question: am I an individual? That is a right question. You said, by asking questions insight came. I doubt it.
1:43:05 WA: No, I didn't mean that by asking questions insight came. I am saying that he asked questions, there was insight. But I don't know whether there is a connection. That is one of the difficulties, because I don't see the connection between asking questions and insight. Insight seems to me something that comes – I don't know where it comes from. That is why I seem to have difficulty.
1:43:25 K: No, to have insight into something you have to have a quiet mind, not identified with anything. Just look at it. Don't you know all this?
1:44:05 K: What is the time?

SS: A quarter to seven.
1:44:08 K: I think we had better stop, don't you?
1:44:12 Many: Yes.