Krishnamurti - Can thought see itself?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR81S3 - Can thought see itself?
Brockwood Park, UK - 13 September 1981
Seminar 3

0:21	Krishnamurti: Shall we go on with our conversation about education still? Yes or no? Questioner: Yes.
0:44	K: As far as one can see, the politicians have not been able to solve any problems. On the contrary, they are increasing more. Nor the scientists. They are creating the atom bomb and the counter-atom bombs and so on, so on. Nor the economists. Nor the social reformers. So, what shall we do? One sees the necessity of a new society, a new relationship between human beings, which is society, and we apparently, ordinary people like us, we don’t seem to change at all. We change slightly here and there, but not fundamentally. And the world is going to rot, disintegrating, and we seem to be utterly helpless. And we have children who are going to be a future generation, and they too seem to follow our pattern. So, what does education mean? Not only the education of our children, but ourselves – what is the whole human life becoming? Where is it all ending up? Should we discuss that a little? Silence, or is it general approval?
3:22	Q: The trouble seems to be, partly, that we have so many problems. We have the problem of our child, the problem of our wife or husband, we have the problem of earning a livelihood, the problem of our job and how to keep it – so many problems confront us. K: So, what?
3:48	Q: We don’t know how to consummate our energies in the essential, or indeed, what is the essential.
3:55	K: Yes. We don’t seem to be able to solve our own problems. We’re probably heaping our problems on to our children. So, where do we start with all this? Surely we can’t depend on politicians any more, including Mrs Thatcher, nor any of the scientists. So, it behoves us to start with ourselves. Surely, that’s the only thing to do. Can we educate ourselves, not allowing time as a factor to change, to bring about a transformation, a mutation of our whole behaviour?
5:11	Q: But is there any reason to assume that we can improve the world through education? The past history of the world gives reason for thinking that individuals can change, but not much hope for thinking that entire societies can be transformed. Are we pursuing a chimera, attempting to change the world through education?
5:39	K: Please, discuss it.
5:41	Q: It was once remarked that Germany before the Second World War was the most educated country in the world. Clearly, it depends what one means by education.
6:05	Q: Education of any kind that’s ever existed in the world has not, as far as we know, succeeded in making any particular country like paradise in terms of the way people behave. Some have been better than others, but is there any reason to believe in the perfectibility of mankind?
6:28	K: Sir, is mankind different from you and me?
6:33	Q: Yes. K: In what way?
6:38	Q: When you have a collective, there seem to be laws and factors of collective psychology different from individual psychology. Psychology of mobs is different from individuals that make up the mob. So, there seem to be general rules of collective psychology that mean that somehow the collective is different from the individuals.
7:02	K: Is the collective different psychologically, from us?
7:08	Q: Yes, I think so. K: In what way?
7:14	Q: The collective, a society contains a lot of social rules. A society has rules, all societies have rules and patterns of behaviour. We are parts of society. The relation between individuals and the societies, it’s like the relation between cells and the body. The body is more than the individual cells and society is more than the individual members of it. It has rules, within which the members interact. I think that there’s a distinct difference between human societies and the individuals that make them up. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Although, of course, the parts are related to the whole.
8:08	Q: But is my greed fundamentally different from the collective greed?
8:13	Q: Yes. Q: In what way?
8:17	Q: I think collective greed is more likely to be a reflection of individual greed than war, as we were discussing last night, but on the whole, people within societies don’t behave aggressively to other members, but societies as a whole often behave aggressively to other societies. It’s rare for ordinary, decent Englishmen to kill other Englishmen, but it’s very common in the last two wars for them to kill Germans or other people who the country declared war on. And this was a sort of social… or a projection of individual things, but it’s not something that happens within. The society, as a whole, seems to have a dynamic which is not just that of the individuals within it. But I think this is a phenomenon that happens all through nature – collectives take on laws and properties which are not simply those of the parts that make them up.
9:23	K: Is a collective an abstraction?
9:27	Q: No, I don’t think a country is an abstraction, or a society. It’s certainly a word, but I think societies have their own… anthropologists can study the customs of different societies…
9:42	K: Yes, is the individual also an abstraction?
9:47	Q: I don’t think so.
9:50	Q: Then we have to distinguish between form and essence. We’ve put together a certain way of behaving, a certain way of dressing which is temporary and a fabrication which we group. In essence, maybe we’re the same. Similarly, with the individual, we transfer things to the collective. That manifests what we are inside. But together, we obey rules with a fabricated system.
10:25	Q: Look, if we try to bring it back just to this room, can’t we see here is a group of people in a collective demonstrating all the ways in which we as individuals privately avoid the central challenge and the essential point? Are we really discussing this matter as a collective differently from the way in which we as individuals consider this matter? Aren’t we continually going about it to ensure that we remain in the same situation, day after day? It may seem different, we’re talking together, but it seems that really we’re just putting out in the open the way in which we ourselves continue to remain as separate individuals, with the collective as another idea.
11:11	Q: Would you say that that’s what we’re pointing out in the discussions? Basically, that’s what education is, the knowledge we’ve talked about, how we feel about the collective mind and the individual, that’s part of education, the way we’re told how to think about things. It’s sort of implicit in the educational system. That seems to be the point we seem to be at.
11:40	K: And also what am I to do? Even if I accept I’m an individual totally different from the collective, what am I to do? Facing all the terrible things that are going on in the world, what am I, a single, lonely, separate individual, to affect this enormous weight of the society? If I think that way, it seems so hopeless.
12:19	Q: Yes.
12:23	K: So, I give it up, or form a cult, which is all so meaningless. Perhaps, there may be another approach.
12:38	Q: What? K: I’m not an individual.
12:44	Q: One step we’ve been trying to take so far, is to get clear that there’s just one central problem, not a very large number of them.
12:53	K: Sir, my problem is a very simple problem: I’ve so far lived as an individual, so far acted as an individual, my relationship with another has been individualistic, my search for truth, for God, has always been individualistic. I’ve also had the belief that in me there is God and that God is looking after me, or I must go after that God. It’s all been a limited, individualistic activity. And seeing this enormous, complex society, with all the horrors, I feel so utterly helpless. Right? So, I say to myself, my thinking may be wrong altogether.
13:55	Q: Absolutely totally, not partially.
13:57	K: It may be wrong altogether, assuming that I’m an individual and being incapable to affect that. Then I become depressed, hopeless, neurotic, and run away into some institution or some ashram or somewhere, and I end up there. What’s the point all this?
14:20	Q: Any attempt to ask how one could help one’s children or one’s students while one’s still in this… K: …in the same pattern.
14:25	Q: …is doomed to failure or very limited success.
14:33	K: Challenge it. Q: Maybe that’s the fact. Maybe it is hopeless.
14:38	K: So, we can’t do anything.
14:41	Q: We may be able to do something about ourselves and people we meet.
14:46	K: But that’s a very small affair.
14:48	Q: Yes, but maybe we’re very small parts of whatever exists, and maybe we have to resign ourselves to this. Maybe this is the nature of things.
14:58	K: I object to that. That’s such a limited, hopeless, self-centred activity. It has no meaning. Q: But it may be true. The question is, is it true or not? If it’s true, one would have to accept it.
15:19	K: I don’t know. I question whether it is true.
15:25	Q: Could I take up the point Dr Sheldrake made a little earlier, that the individual is essentially different from the society as a whole, and new properties come into existence in a large assembly of individuals? Doubtless it is true that one mustn’t make too close a parallel between individual psychology and mass psychology – things can come out in a differing degree in these different situations, and a British man won’t normally seek to solve his problems with a neighbour by murdering him, it is more common to do this on a collective level. But this is only a difference of degree because neighbours do sometimes murder one another. Essentially, I don’t think it’s very different. Also, I would suggest that it would be a mistake to say that the individual is related to the society in the same way that say a cell is related to the whole body, because undoubtedly the whole body in the assembly of cells has totally new properties which the individual cell doesn’t possess. But I don’t think you would… ultimately, in the structure and functioning of the brain, which, after all, is an assembly of cells. But if it really were like that, it would be very different, but I don’t think you’d want to push that analogy that far. I think the differences of the way in which the national leaders sit down to plan foreign policies and the thinking that goes on, is not really very different from the way they think in their personal lives and the way they have developed as human beings during their childhood.
17:27	Q: I rather think it is. And the analogy between society and an organism is a very old one.
17:34	Q: But I don’t think it’s a good one.
17:37	Q: I think there’s something to be said for it. But I think that these politicians are different. When they’re sitting at home chatting to their friends and family, they are not saying to each other, ‘Shall we build more hydrogen bombs in case the neighbours break down our fence?’ They don’t say, ‘Shall we pile up more arms because of our neighbours?’ These are phenomenon that they only do in their role as politicians as part of the society. I think these are emerging properties.
18:04	Q: This is the confusion.
18:06	Q: People do this in all walks of life, not just politicians. They separate their personal life from their professional life. This is typically what individuals experience in their daily lives. It’s a mistake to say an individual is totally different from society or totally the same, but somewhere in between.
18:28	Q: But the individual doesn’t have so much information as a man who has government responsibilities. That changes your outlook completely, once you’re in power.
18:40	Q: But, sir, aren’t we talking about basic human psychology? Aren’t we talking about the psyche of what is basically in there, which is fear and violence and greed? My greed, as Doris pointed out, isn’t different from anyone else’s. My jealously is not different from another human being’s jealousy. Basically, the make-up of all human beings is the same.
19:14	Q: Yes, but I think when you’re talking about education and change, it’s possible to conceive of a number of individuals becoming non-greedy or non-jealous or non-aggressive. For a whole society not to be greedy, jealous and aggressive, you’ve got to have a majority, if not all the individuals thinking that way. That means that whereas an individual can make a free choice of his own not to be greedy or jealous or aggressive, if you’re going to make everybody like this and still be free individuals…
19:46	Q: No, but I think that’s jumping a little bit.
19:50	Q: You made the jump from individual greed to greed of society. I say that there’s a choice whereby an individual can cease to be greedy. I agree, it can happen. Whether an entire society can decide not to be greedy without all the individuals or the majority of the individuals deciding, is another thing. You’re saying that society is made up of the individuals.
20:11	Q: I’m not even going that far. I’m saying human beings are basically greedy, acquisitive, self-centred, jealous, fearful and so on. That’s where I’m beginning, I’m not going any further, as yet. If we start there, then perhaps we can see where we can go, if one sees that part. Q: Yes, all right, I agree. But I think there are differences, some are more greedy than others.
20:40	Q: But fear and greed is expressed in foreign policies of nations and this is basically the same as the fear and greed and insecurity of individuals in their personal lives.
20:56	Q: Yes. Q: That’s the important thing.
21:00	Q: Exactly. Now moving to the next stage, if one’s going to transform the whole of society so that it’s no longer fearful and greedy then not only have we got to transform a few individuals, we’ve got to transform most of them. And to transform most in one particular direction, which goes against the normal human nature, which is deeply ingrained, to my mind could only be done by compulsion.
21:25	Q: Isn’t this a hypothetical situation? We don’t actually know what would happen if you had a large group of people who were not greedy.
21:36	Q: We don’t know, but the original question came up, is this possible? If it’s not possible, if all that can change is individuals rather than entire societies, then the whole discussion starts as to whether this aim to change the world or change society is possible, whether society will always be roughly as it has been.
22:02	Q: I’m not sure we’re actually aiming to change society. I think we’ve already made a jump there. It seems to me that when one is talking about changing society, one normally talks in terms of an external change.
22:18	Q: But if we’re only talking about changing individuals, then this is a different matter.
22:22	Q: I’m not sure we’re talking about changing individuals either.
22:25	Q: We’re talking about education, and education is surely in the business of changing.
22:31	Q: In education, you’re trying to see the real significance of greed. What is the real significance of greed?
22:39	Q: We’re talking about whether oneself can change, not about whether we can change lots of people a little or lots of people a lot. We’re seeing that the problem is here in me and in you, as it clearly is, as we’ve established, and we’re not going very much further beyond that, we’re just saying, now, can that change? We’re not discussing what sort of education system might make it a bit easier for it to change a little bit. The actual question that has been put before us is, is it possible now for us here today, individually, if you like to use that word, for a change to occur? Q: But is it just that? Krishnaji said earlier we live in a terrible world and can we do nothing about it? K: I didn’t say that, that we cannot do anything about it.
23:27	Q: No, you said, can we do nothing about it? And if one can just… this is surely not just ourselves, it’s the whole situation.
23:37	Q: The question being put is, if there is a change in us, then it may be possible for other changes to come about. But we can’t explore that except as speculation, unless the first step occurs, which seems to be where we all continually stop. The only really valid inquiry at the moment, seems to be can we change? We can go into what the effects that would have on other people and the schools and the world, if it comes about, but if we (are) putting all our best efforts into it, can’t change, it’s impossible for us to discuss change in other people.
24:17	Q: There is no right answer to this question, what am I to do? There is no answer to this question because all the answers we shall give, they will be at the level of the ‘me’, intellectual or emotional. The answer is only when ‘me’ is not. So, we can discuss this. The answers will be from ‘me’.
25:00	Q: I don’t think we are talking about a planned change of any kind. That’s what seems to be confusing us here. As individuals, we are probably capable of all kinds of behaviours, but there is a sheer constraint placed when we are in a group such as this. I know when I have to say something I have to think, what other people might say, perhaps.
25:29	K: Sir, as Mr Nicholson pointed out just now, can I change now? That’s the whole problem. If I do change now, immediately, how will it affect the society, this society which is so corrupt and all the rest of it? What’s the point of my changing if that remains like that? I’m just taking that up. Does changing my consciousness affect the consciousness of the world? That’s all my point. If I accept that I’m an individual and I do change my consciousness, with all its content, will it have any consequence or it’s just a slight transformation of a little mind?
26:37	Q: But we don’t change.
26:40	K: I’m not saying we shouldn’t change.
26:42	Q: No, I’m saying we don’t change because it might have an effect on other people.
26:48	K: No, sorry. What is my relationship to society, and what is my action towards that society? And if I do act correctly, not selfishly, not greedily and so on, will it have a tremendous wave that will cover the entirety of mankind, or is it just a work in the backyard?
27:26	Q: So long as I’m self-centred how do I know the answer to that question?
27:36	K: Answer it. Go on, sir.
27:41	Q: I don’t think that’s the way it works, really. The change or the discussion of the possibility of a change comes about from seeing the necessity of a change. What happens to it later on is, in a sense, none of your business.
27:59	K: It’s none of my business, I agree, but I’ve a feeling that if I, as an individual, which I don’t accept – I am not an individual. I’m the result of the collective. My greed is the common greed of mankind, my envy and so on, is the common factor of all mankind, psychologically. So, I don’t think in terms of the individual.
28:40	Q: So, you don’t think in terms of society either.
28:43	K: No. I think in terms of humanity whose consciousness is the common consciousness of mankind.
28:54	Q: But also, you’re not saying that you’re bound by that consciousness?
28:59	K: No, of course not.
29:04	Q: You imply also, sir, that if you think of yourself or approach change as an individual, no real fundamental change will occur.
29:15	K: No. Go on, sir, the ball is in your court.
29:26	Q: I agree that a change in the consciousness of one person is likely to affect the consciousness, in some subtle ways, of all people. Now, there’s a difference between saying it changes the consciousness of mankind, this is an abstraction. If you say it changes the consciousness of other individuals, isn’t this a different way of saying it? Why do you want to use the abstraction ‘mankind’, rather than say ‘other individuals throughout the world’?
30:00	K: We’re all affected by Hitler, Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha – we are always being pressurised by all the people around us. We are that.
30:19	Q: Yes. But, sir, at the same time the way Hitler affects this consciousness is entirely different from the way this consciousness might be affected by a real change in someone.
30:37	K: Which means I have to be free of Hitler, all the Hitlerian business. I have to be free of the propaganda that I’m a Hindu or a Christian. There must be freedom from all this, first.
30:59	Q: It also implies that trying to see how one change in consciousness will affect the whole…
31:08	K: That comes a little later.
31:11	Q: Hitler might not be a good example.
31:14	K: First, I do not accept myself as an individual.
31:22	Q: No, but if we agree that all these changes in consciousness of people like Jesus and Hitler and so on affect the consciousness of other people in the world – which I do accept myself – then we still have the problem that there’s consciousness of individuals, or at least of people – I’ll use the word ‘people’ not ‘individual’ – is changed but we are still left with the problem of societies, namely nation states, castes, communities and so on, all seem to have their own historical dynamics and they all seem to go on according to their own historical mores. Although the people within them all over the world are affected by this collective human consciousness lots of different societies, all with different sorts of rules, all depending on their own historical purpose and historical conflicts between each other in other societies. These seem to have a different dynamic that seems to go on independently.
32:33	K: Yes, sir, but do we acknowledge that the basic psychological content of each one of us is common to all mankind? That’s all, first.
32:49	Q: Yes, I acknowledge that.
32:51	K: So, my consciousness, which is greed, envy, all that, is the common consciousness of mankind. However dynamic, however this or that, it is the common ground on which we all stand.
33:09	Q: Yes.
33:11	K: The moment you admit that, I am not an individual. Nor are you an individual. Your consciousness is the consciousness of all mankind.
33:29	Q: In one sense it is and in another sense it isn’t.
33:32	K: Stick to one sense. I can play this ball game back and forth.
33:41	Q: All right, in one sense, yes, it is.
33:44	K: As long as I am not an individual, my whole thinking is different. My thinking is not individualistic, my thinking is the common ground on which we stand. If there is a change in one part of consciousness, it affects the whole, the group consciousness, collective consciousness.
34:28	Q: Yes, I accept that. K: If you accept that, then our education is not individualistic education but the education which is to empty the content of one’s consciousness – greed, envy, fear, sorrow, beliefs, all that kind of collective thing, which is collective.
35:01	Q: Yes. K: And is that possible?
35:08	Q: I think it is, but I don’t know if it’s possible through education.
35:14	K: Let’s forget the word ‘education’.
35:16	Q: All right.
35:17	K: Is that possible, for this consciousness, common consciousness, for that consciousness which is now in me, can that content be – what? – transformed, not gradually but immediately? That’s the question he has been raising and he’s sticking to that. So am I.
35:52	Q: Can we also make the implication from that, that if that happens, that, in turn, affects the collective consciousness?
36:01	K: Of course.
36:03	Q: Therefore, a new factor is added or injected into that totality of consciousness. Q: Yes. But it wouldn’t mean that everybody else would immediately undergo the same transformation. It might make it easier for subsequent peoples.
36:19	Q: Are we making a mistake to try and make it numerically everybody? That’s such an absolute.
36:26	Q: We’re talking about the fact that we’re related to the collective and things affect other people. I’m just trying to analyse to what extent they affect other people, whether we are talking about… Q: I think you can’t measure.
36:42	Q: We’re talking numerically. We are talking about in other people, or other members of the human race.
36:50	Q: We’re also talking qualitatively. It’s not just a matter of numbers. A qualitative change.
36:57	Q: But I’m asking is, if this qualitative change occurs in one person, in a sense, it affects other members of the human race, but I’m simply asking the question, in what way? Does it affect them as making easier a potential for change in them? Would it make it easier for them to undergo the same sort of change? Will they themselves have to undergo it? It might make it easier for them to do it, lower the threshold, for this change to occur in others. What sort of effect does it have? That’s really what I’m asking.
37:38	K: Sir, as we came to yesterday, we are a collection of memories. You agreed to that. Q: Yes.
37:51	K: Completely a collection of memories.
37:53	Q: No, we didn’t say we were completely.
37:56	K: What is that?
37:58	Q: We didn’t say it was completely.
38:00	K: Oh, I see. Partially, yes. Let’s come to a point. I say completely. My tradition, belief, the whole cultural, educational movement is to cultivate memory. And when I say my whole consciousness is memory, you say, ‘No, partly’. Which means there is some part in me or in that consciousness which is not memory. I say, how can that be? That may also be another memory, which I have sublimated.
39:02	Q: But you yourself refuted that by bringing up love.
39:06	K: Ah! No, don’t go back to that for the moment. I am trying to find out if the whole of my consciousness is memory, how can one go beyond all that? That’s my question. Not I have a part somewhere hidden in me which is not memory. That’s a Hindu concept, a different Christian concept, and so on, there is in me a certain clarity of heaven, which is guiding, which is helping, which is shaping. Personally, I don’t accept that. That’s also part of my tradition which has been handed down to me, which is memory, again.
40:11	Q: The concept of it may be a memory but the experience of it may not be.
40:19	K: The fact may not? Q: Yes, the fact may not be.
40:21	K: How do I know the fact?
40:25	Q: Through memory.
40:26	Q: No, you can know it directly.
40:31	Q: Through experience. Q: Through intuition.
40:33	K: Through experience. Experience is the most dangerous thing. One can say there is this, inside me, a spot of absolute purity, etc. I can experience that. But that experience is already preconceived.
41:04	Q: Not necessarily. It could happen spontaneously.
41:08	K: Now, wait a minute. To be spontaneous, you must have freedom. You must have total freedom from all this, to be really spontaneous.
41:19	Q: Well, does the spontaneity override the conditioning, or do you have to get rid of the conditioning first? It seems this isn’t at all clear how this could…
41:33	K: Please, somebody take it off me.
41:36	Q: Obviously, it has to happen spontaneously. You can’t through deliberate action override all your conditioning – that’s clearly another kind of conditioning.
41:45	Q: How are you going to find out answers to some of these questions?
41:52	Q: Well, we were given the answer yesterday, that’s the point. We came to this point yesterday and then…
42:03	Q: Is that the same as being given the answer?
42:06	Q: Well, I thought the answer was quite clear. The thing that Krishnaji raised that wasn’t memory was love. This seemed to provide a clear answer to something that isn’t memory.
42:28	K: All right, just let’s look at that for a minute. I am memory and you have told me a love, which is not memory. Right? You have indicated, you have suggested, you have shown me something which is not. Is it possible for this memory to subside, so that the other can be? You follow my question?
42:58	Q: Yes, I think that’s a great mystery. I don’t know.
43:03	K: Why do you call it a mystery? Did you call it a mystery?
43:07	Q: Yes. K: Why?
43:12	Q: Because the relation between memory which is the conditioning effect on our own individual and collective pasts, and something which is free and spontaneous, it’s not clear what the relation between these two things could be because they’re incommensurate, and therefore the relation between them must be a mystery. There’s no clear and rational connection between the two.
43:38	Q: Would you say that if one of the two were absent, the other would be?
43:45	Q: Or is one born from the other?
43:48	Q: Well, my own view, I suppose, is that the creative activity of love, as it works it casts off a residue, or it leaves behind a sort of residue which becomes memory. In the great religions of the world, one can see this process happening. Something that starts as living, free and spontaneous leading to a shell, which can become an empty shell, which is then part of the tradition. So, that’s one relation between the two. I can see how you could get to memories from love. I can’t see how you could get to love from memory.
44:38	Q: If you could deal with memory in a way that would evaporate it in the active sense in the mind, wouldn’t that be like opening a window and letting something else in?
44:54	Q: Yes, but I don’t think you could actually evaporate it through will.
44:58	Q: Not through will, but is there some other way of evaporating it?
45:03	Q: You’d have to just let it come. You couldn’t do it deliberately. Nor do I see how you could do it repeatedly or regularly. It seems to me that most of the time we have to live in the world, and we need our memories. We may have moments when this insight comes but it’s not something we can maintain 24 hours a day or many times a day.
45:25	K: Sir, we said too yesterday, if I remember, love is not memory.
45:30	Q: Yes. K: But my whole being is memory.
45:37	Q: Well, some of it. K: My whole being is memory. I don’t admit there is some spark in me which is not memory. That, again, maybe tradition. So, I don’t know what that love is. I really don’t. Suppose I don’t. Then what am I to do with this thing called memory, which is me? That’s the question.
46:10	Q: But if try to do something with it I’m back into the same old trap. We came to a point yesterday when you were talking about listening.
46:19	K: Sir, go back, go into it. I am memory and you have told me love is not that. But my whole being is this extraordinary collection of memories, experiences, tradition, all that. And I may not be able to capture that thing. So, I’m only concerned with this. That may be your imagination, just something which is romantic. But I’m stranded with this. You’re talking about the other bank but I’m on this side of the bank. So, what am I to do? What is the action or non-action? Please, don’t introduce spontaneity, if you don’t mind. I am here, on this bank and there is no boat to take me across there, so I am stuck with this. What am I to do? I have meditated, sacrificed, I have disciplined, I’ve done every kind of dirty trick I can invent and I’m still there.
48:15	Q: I can’t move from here, if I feel that. If I feel that I’m confronted with this realisation that this is all I am, there’s no way out, because I’ve tried all that.
48:31	K: I don’t admit there is no way out.
48:35	Q: Not with my usual attitude or way of life. I’ve tried all the ways out and see that as I am now, there is no way out and I can’t move from here.
48:53	K: So, I am on this side of the bank. It’s a simile, that’s good enough. I’m on this side of the bank. I have done every kind of thing man has invented to reach the other bank but at the end of it, I’m still here. And I ask you, who are all very well educated, etc., I say, ‘Please, what am I to do?’ I have been to all the gurus, all the rubbish. I’ve finished with them. I’m still here.
49:38	Q: The attempt to get to the other bank is surely a rejection. A rejection. The fact that I want to go to the other bank...
49:45	K: I don’t. I can’t. I have tried to get to the other bank. All the educated, clever people, the saints, the gurus, everybody says, ‘Do this, do that and do the other thing’, and at the end of it, I am still here.
50:05	Q: But I’m not accepting it.
50:09	K: I am accepting it. I am here. I don’t say I don’t want to be here. I am there. You’re not facing something.
50:23	Q: At the end of Friday, didn’t we come to the point where you see that any effort to get across the river...
50:29	K: I don’t want to...
50:32	Q:...is part of the same thing that’s keeping you there. And if I remember correctly, you said that if you remain with that.
50:43	K: That’s all I’m saying. I am stuck here. I don’t know what the other bank is. I don’t want to imagine the other bank. I’m not even interested in the other bank. I’m here with my sorrow, my pleasures, with my agony and all the rest of the beastly existence that I live. And I say to myself, ‘What am I to do?’ Or not to do anything at all may be the most positive action.
51:28	Q: We cannot escape that existence you’ve just described.
51:36	Q: We can’t escape that existence. K: I am that. I have been through all those tricks. I’m fairly intelligent. I’m stuck here and I say, ‘Any movement from me is still part of the same old pattern’. So, I won’t move. I don’t reject, I don’t accept, I don’t try to escape from it. I say, ‘Here I am’.
52:22	Q: Isn’t there a transforming quality in just seeing it and being with it? Just see that. Doesn’t that transform the situation?
52:34	K: I don’t know. Please, can we discuss that?
52:45	Q: It’s a very special not doing anything that you’re talking about.
52:51	K: But I have done everything. Q: But the not doing of anything...
52:55	K: I have come to the point when I see whatever I do is still… on this side of the bank. So, I refuse to do anything.
53:08	Q: There are some kinds of not doing anything, which most of the world does which doesn’t do anything either. K: I’m not talking of the world. Leave the world, for the moment. I have experimented, I have meditated, I have talked about kundalini, I’ve talked about this and that and every other kind of rubbish, and I’m still stuck at this end. You’re not answering my question. I am here. I refuse to move.
53:38	Q: But haven’t I reached some kind of love there? I’m not individual any longer then. I have achieved something already.
53:54	Q: The great preoccupation with the ‘I’, the wish to transform oneself, is itself a negative thing. The image of the river bank is perhaps not inclusive enough. We are in life, we are in relationships...
54:11	K: I have been through all that. I have altered my relationship with my wife, with my friends. I’ve played all that thing. At the end of it all I say, ‘I’m still here’. I’m not depressed, I’m not hopeless, I haven’t thrown up the sponge.
54:38	Q: You’re not accepting that either. There’s no acceptance in that.
54:42	K: No. Are we together at that point? That’s my point. Or are we still intellectually playing the game or emotionally, romantically say, ‘There is the other bank, how lovely, God is looking after me and there is in me’ – etc., etc.? Knowing politics won’t change. Those politicians are like me, greedy, seeking power, position, all the rest of the ugly business.
55:26	Q: They may be, but we are also saying that we are better.
55:30	K: I’m not saying that. I am part of that whole structure. So, I say to myself, ‘I’ll just not move from that position’. Move in the sense, let thought invade with any kind of enticement.
56:17	Q: I don’t see what there is to say, in the circumstances. I don’t see any way out of that. K: There is a way out.
56:29	Q: But that means we’re all dying to hear what the way out is.
56:35	K: Wait a minute. I’ve refused all the gurus, so you can’t make me into a guru.
56:50	Q: So, how do we know there’s a way out?
56:54	K: If you will listen, I shall tell you. Sir, I’m dreadfully serious over this matter because I don’t think there is any other action but non-action, because we’re always acting, trying to do something about it.
57:39	Q: We are not completely discontent in that state.
57:43	K: Yes. I’m not trying to run away. I’m not trying to suppress myself. Thought is totally inactive. Because thought has put me on this bank. Right? That’s the first thing I’ve realised, that thought has put me on this bank. If thought says again, ‘I want to get there’, it’s the past, I’m still here. So, can one remain there without any thought? You understand what I mean by thought? Not become vague, or a vegetable, just without the pressure of thought, without the interference of thought.
59:31	Q: Krishnaji, the great danger in what you’ve just said seems to be that it becomes a prescription.
59:39	K: It is not. Is it a prescription?
59:46	Q: Krishnaji, the pressure of thought is really the problem, the interference of thought isn’t really the problem.
59:53	K: Because thought has created this mess in the world. Right, sir?
1:00:01	Q: Yes.
1:00:04	K: And the politicians are still working in the field of thought. Thought being partial, their activity will always be partial. Scientists, the artists, they are all partial. So, is it possible for thought to see that what it has done? Both the beautiful architecture, surgery and all the rest of it, but also, psychologically what thought has done – created such havoc in our relationship with each other. And for thought itself to realise that it cannot interfere. This is the real problem. Go on, discuss with me. Can thought perceive itself?
1:01:24	Q: But you’re introducing something. That there may be something in thought that isn’t conditioned.
1:01:34	K: My question is, please – I’m not challenging you, I’m just questioning – my question is, can thought see itself, be aware of itself, see its movement? What is this?
1:02:16	Q: We can see the structure of thoughts and ideas, but we’re always doing it with other thoughts. So, we can always stand back and look at thoughts.
1:02:26	K: Then, who is it that stands back?
1:02:30	Q: As long as we’re considering other thoughts, it seems to be other thoughts.
1:02:37	K: That is still thought.
1:02:39	Q: Yes, we can see some thoughts but with other thoughts.
1:02:43	K: No, not one thought sees another thought – that’s not my question – but thought itself, observes itself.
1:02:59	Q: I don’t know if that’s possible or not.
1:03:02	Q: So far, we’ve said that all our thoughts are conditioned by our past. So, if that’s the case...
1:03:10	K: Madame, can I observe the rising of anger? You can. Q: Yes.
1:03:23	K: Is there an awareness of thought arising? Of itself.
1:03:35	Q: I don’t think so.
1:03:38	K: Go on, let’s find out.
1:03:42	Q: I don’t see how thought can observe itself. There is something beyond thought which is the observer.
1:03:51	K: Then you introduce another factor.
1:03:56	Q: One does, but I think that’s what is there.
1:03:58	K: That’s just the difficulty, that’s what I’m asking.
1:04:01	Q: I feel that is real.
1:04:04	K: I’m aware when anger arises. I can see the whole movement of it. Or greed, violence and so on. Why is it not possible for thought itself to be aware, as it arises? If it is possible in one direction, why not thought itself?
1:04:35	Q: But what sees the anger arising? Is it thoughts or is it something else?
1:04:44	K: Can’t you see, sir? Look, you call me a fool and I can see the reaction, getting annoyed with the word.
1:04:56	Q: Yes, but Krishnaji, when you see it, it seems to stop.
1:04:59	K: Not a question of seems to stop, but the very arising, sir.
1:05:05	Q: Yes, you can see the arising. K: Wait, wait, wait. Arising, that’s all I’m asking. Is there an observation…? Can thought observe itself arising?
1:05:25	Q: In the first case, does anger see itself arising or does thought see anger arising? K: No, sir.
1:05:35	Q: What action takes place?
1:05:40	K: Sir, when I’m angry it bursts out – right? – then, a few seconds later, I say to myself, ‘I’ve been angry’. At the moment of anger, I’m not aware that I’m angry. It’s only later. Now, I am asking at the arising of anger, not later.
1:06:08	Q: You’re saying something quite simple. I can’t put it into words very well but there seems to be a watchfulness that seems to be very aware of something coming.
1:06:22	K: Are we tremendously complicating a very simple thing?
1:06:28	Q: I think maybe we are. We’ve all had moments when you realise that thought has been absent. Isn’t that thought watching thought because it’s come back?
1:06:43	K: No. When you say, ‘I have watched thought acting…’
1:06:48	Q: No, no, not acting. You suddenly become aware…
1:06:54	K: Not ‘you become’ – you see? Q: I’m not putting it very well. I’m assuming that we all have moments, I certainly have had, when you realise that thought has been absent. But when you realise that, thought is back.
1:07:12	K: Yes, that’s all.
1:07:13	Q: But that moment of realisation is thought watching a thought?
1:07:19	K: Go on, explain it to yourself, you’ll see it. You said just now that – I’m just repeating it – that you watched thought arising. Right? Q: Yes.
1:07:40	K: And you saw that thought was acting.
1:07:44	Q: No, it had been absent. K: All right – it has been absent. Also, at other times you saw thought is active.
1:07:54	Q: Well, the very moment when you realise that thought has come to an end, it’s back. That realisation is thought, isn’t it?
1:08:05	K: Yes, of course.
1:08:08	Q: It seems the same as observing anger arising, the observation of thought coming back, is thought watching thought.
1:08:19	K: I’m talking about thought itself, per se, arising. Is that possible? That gentleman says it’s not possible. It may be. Or there is no watcher at all. Now we are thinking in terms of watcher and the watched.
1:08:46	Q: But isn’t it the same thing? K: No, that’s an idea still.
1:08:52	Q: Is it the totality of thought then, in itself?
1:08:58	Q: Is it the totality of thought in itself?
1:09:03	K: I don’t have to answer. Answer it. I’m not the only guru here – we’re all gurus.
1:09:13	Q: There seems to be a state of awareness which is not thought.
1:09:23	Q: It seems to me that thought is such a fragmented thing that I don’t see how thought can watch itself. How can a fragmented thing watch itself?
1:09:40	K: Then, I realise I am memory, a bundle of memories, I’m on this side of the bank – right? – and thought has realised that any movement from it is still to move within the limited area of the bank. Right?
1:10:11	Q: Yes, sir.
1:10:13	K: I have come to that point, that any movement of thought is to bring back to this memory, to this side of the bank. So, thought itself says, ‘There must be no interference’. I don’t know if I’m making it clear.
1:10:37	Q: Are you saying that thought itself has seen that any movement…
1:10:41	K: Yes. That’s all for the moment.
1:10:47	Q: Is that the same as saying that is a moment of insight?
1:10:55	K: No, let’s forget insight for the moment. Sir, thought has realised what it has done. It has built the most marvellous cathedrals, temples and mosques, and all the things in the mosques, in the temples, in the churches. Thought has realised it has created marvellous instruments of surgery. It has also realised the submarine, the torpedoes, the man-of-war. Also, it has realised thought is fear, pleasure, thought is suffering. Thought itself has seen itself in action. Right? Of course, this is simple. One can see this. And thought says, ‘I am all that’. It may not express it verbally. Thought realises, this is me. Not the man-of-war, fortunately. This is me. So, thought says to itself, ‘By Jove, I must be quiet, not interfere’. So, that is a tremendous revolution, isn’t it?
1:12:44	Q: You’re making the thought to be very creative.
1:12:47	K: Not creative – it realises, sir. What is the courage? There is no value. What thought has created is courage. I wonder if we have realised, if I may most respectfully ask, if we realise the activity of thought, its immense contribution and its immense danger?
1:13:40	Q: Krishnaji, are you suggesting that thought might help us to look at things differently? K: No. Look, Mr Jenkins, thought has created the instruments of surgery, the most extraordinarily delicate instruments. Right? And also thought has created the submarine. And also thought has created God, the thought that in me there is that marvellous state. Thought has also created misery, confusion, division between nations. Thought has been responsible for all this misery. I wonder if one realises that. Not verbally – deeply, profoundly, in one’s guts.
1:15:03	Q: In that realisation, there is the ability for it to stop its continuity.
1:15:08	K: No, in that realisation, thought itself says, ‘By Jove… anything I do must be still contributing to that’.
1:15:49	Q: Then what happens? Q: Nothing.
1:15:53	K: What do you mean, what happens? Q: Thought stops in its track.
1:15:58	K: Does – forgive me for asking you, sir – with you, does thought stop in its track?
1:16:07	Q: Sometimes it does. K: No, no, ‘sometimes’ – that’s like being hungry sometimes. But does it stop in its own track, say, ‘No further’?
1:16:36	Q: That would include all one’s individuality, one’s future plans, as well as the movement of thought. K: Of course. After all, sir, if you once admit thought is partial – because it is born of knowledge and knowledge is never complete – if you once admit that, it’s always partial, then one begins to see its contradictions – you follow? – its activity, the nature of a beautiful instrument, and also the divisions, the miseries. Thought, it is really responsible for all this.
1:17:25	Q: The whole of one’s relationship to the world.
1:17:32	K: Thought is not the universe.
1:17:36	Q: The whole of my relationship to the world.
1:17:38	K: Yes, the whole of me is thought.
1:17:42	Q: So, it’s not just the movement of thought which is going to stop in my mind for a moment or two but it’s the whole movement of the world, as I know it.
1:17:53	K: That is, is there freedom – sorry – is there a freedom from knowledge? Or am I always working within knowledge, which is memory? Well, sir?
1:18:18	Q: One thing I didn’t understand. You said, ‘I begin to see’. That would imply this is a process in time.
1:18:27	K: Yes, sir.
1:18:28	Q: I’m not being awkward, I’m trying to understand it.
1:19:22	K: Is it possible not to think in terms of time? To put it differently, is it possible to end totally this becoming something, which is time? Right, sir? Can that end? So, to come back, is education helping us to live in becoming?
1:20:34	Q: Yes. That’s the way education is structured.
1:20:42	K: I know, it is structured, so let’s break, look at it differently. I have a son. I haven’t. Suppose I have a son or a daughter. How am I to help them to see this point? Where examinations exist, college, university, in one direction, to get a job, to get a career, specialisation, and also, psychologically, he’s doing the same, inwardly. Becoming something, reaching nirvana, reaching heaven, reaching God, – all that, which is becoming, becoming. ‘I am not that, but I will be that’. Can all that movement end?
1:22:00	Q: Thought can only exist in time. K: Of course, sir. Thought is time.
1:22:15	Q: But is becoming thought? Do you think that even if one’s in a state of thoughtlessness, not thinking, that becoming can continue in the absence of thought? Or the sense of becoming can exist in the absence of thought?
1:22:34	K: Sense of becoming, of course, psychologically. Because, sir, look, I’m violent, I will be non-violent – which is becoming. Q: That’s thought.
1:22:46	Q: Yes, but I’m talking whether the sense of becoming is itself thought or whether there’s a sense of becoming which... I’m thinking, for example, if one looks at animals, many animals are not thinking in any normal sense of the word, and yet they’re becoming, and their entire being is devoted to becoming.
1:23:09	K: Are they becoming psychologically or physically?
1:23:17	Q: Well, I think they do both. They grow and develop and then they carry out a series of actions which are related to becoming in various ways.
1:23:31	K: But is that becoming different from my becoming non-violent? You understand my question? Q: Yes. I don’t know. That’s my question. What I’m trying to find out is whether becoming, which is basically within our biological nature…
1:23:56	K: Biologically, yes, I admit that.
1:23:58	Q: Then there’s a sort of higher level of becoming where thought is concerned with becoming, with desires and actions.
1:24:06	K: That’s it. That’s it.
1:24:07	Q: Now, if one goes beyond that, is there an intrinsic sort of becoming that persists even beyond thought? Is time merely a conception or is it something intrinsically built in that somehow persists even in the absence of thought?
1:24:28	Q: You mean, do we go on getting older if we don’t think?
1:24:31	Q: No. If in the absence of thought we have any kind of consciousness at all. If it’s just blank, then there’s nothing to say.
1:24:42	Q: Where does the word ‘blank’ come from?
1:24:47	Q: We’re talking about something – we have to use words.
1:24:51	K: No, I’m not talking of being blank.
1:24:53	Q: No, I said if it’s a blank, then there’s nothing more we can say about it.
1:24:59	K: There is a great deal more to say about it, but I won’t go into it. Wait a minute, sir. I am talking of not becoming, psychologically.
1:25:14	Q: Yes. K: That’s all, not anything else. Because that is part of our great struggle, conflict – I must be, I must not be, I have been, I should be. I’m talking in that field only.
1:25:36	Q: Yes, all right.
1:25:39	K: Now, if there is an end to becoming – is that possible, first? I am conditioned, I must not be conditioned, tell me how to be, etc., etc. So, is there a becoming psychologically at all? Or thought has said, ‘You must become that’. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. I’ve always a cause and an effect. I always have a goal, an end. But if I have no cause, if I have no end, if I have no saying, ‘I have been, I should be’, if I wipe out all that – what? What remains?
1:27:03	Q: Clearly, whatever remains can’t either be a sense of individuality or a sense of time or a sense of becoming or a sense of goal.
1:27:12	K: I said I wiped out all that. Q: Yes. So, we can say what it’s not, but I don’t see what we can say about what it is, of what remains.
1:27:26	K: I think we can, more or less. We can indulge in description, but the description is not the real. Our minds are always occupied with something – right? – something or other. What happens if there is no occupation? Do I go to sleep? Does the mind go to sleep, therefore must be occupied to keep itself alive? Or if the brain, if one sees occupation, whether it is with Jesus or cooking, is the same occupation.
1:28:25	Q: Well, I don’t think it’s the same occupation.
1:28:32	K: So, I’m concerned whether it is possible not to be occupied.
1:28:41	Q: If one is not becoming and one is not occupied, one still is.
1:28:48	K: Now, what is that?
1:28:52	Q: Being as distinct from becoming.
1:28:58	K: Is that being static?
1:29:03	Q: This is what thought tends to put on this.
1:29:07	K: That’s right – what is that state when there is no becoming? When thought is in abeyance, as it were, what is that state?
1:29:32	Q: I feel that state is awareness.
1:29:43	K: Awareness. Just awareness?
1:29:49	Q: That’s what I feel.
1:29:57	Q: A sense of freedom.
1:30:06	Q: Awareness of the whole.
1:30:13	K: Let’s look at it for a minute. I’m occupied with meditation, with writing, with this, with that, and I say, ‘How silly. I won’t be occupied’. There is no occupation. What is happening? Is it empty? And what’s wrong with being empty?
1:31:08	Q: It doesn’t seem possible to empty oneself of thought. It doesn’t seem possible. K: Why do you say it’s impossible?
1:31:18	Q: Because one’s mind is endlessly going on and on.
1:31:24	K: Going on and on with what? Q: With thought.
1:31:27	K: Ah, well. That’s why we asked, madame, if thought could see itself in action.
1:31:50	Q: This emptiness you describe is an attainable state, I think, but now we have to ask, how long can we remain in that state and what is the value of being in it?
1:32:02	K: Ah, not ‘how long’ – then we are back. Q: But we are back. We don’t live in that state. The question is how it modifies life and the world.
1:32:30	K: Sir, for a few seconds I have this feeling of complete emptiness and therefore a feeling of wholeness. I don’t know if it’s right. I feel empty – not ‘I feel’ – there’s emptiness and that has the appearance or feeling or the actuality of something whole. It lasts a few seconds and then I’m back – I’m then occupied. I’m occupied with that feeling now. ‘By Jove, I had that feeling, that sense of enormity of wholeness and I’d like to capture it again’. So that becomes my occupation. I’m occupied with something that is finished. Now, the memory is reviving that and we’re occupied with that.
1:33:42	Q: You might then write a very good poem. Wordsworthian description of poetry – emotion recollected in tranquillity. Which surely is a worthwhile companion.
1:34:01	K: Sir, that’s over. As far as I’m concerned that incident of wholeness is gone, finished. It’s a dead thing. But my concern is, why is my mind occupied? Is it because if it’s not occupied, it’s frightened? Because in occupation, there is a certain sense of security. Suddenly take it away, I’m lost. So, it’s frightened.
1:34:40	Q: It could also be a habit. K: It can be a habit, of course. Or it feels, ‘If I’m not occupied, I am terribly lost, I am lonely’ – you follow? – all those things operate.
1:35:00	Q: Aren’t most people occupied because they don’t want to see what they are?
1:35:05	K: Yes, sir.
1:35:13	Q: But we’ve also said when we’re not occupied – it lasts a second or so – there’s a marvellous feeling of wholeness. So, when we’re thinking of not wanting to be occupied, it’s just conjecture, surely? K: Not when… No. To observe ourselves and be aware that we’re occupied.
1:35:41	Q: But you pointed out the incident just now of not being occupied and there being a marvellous feeling of wholeness. When you’re again occupied, you want to continue this. On the other hand you’re saying we’re afraid not to be occupied. And yet we want this marvellous feeling of wholeness.
1:36:13	Q: Krishnaji, you also said whether this feeling of wholeness is static. When the mind is not occupied in becoming or in any other sense, whether that feeling is static.
1:36:34	K: Find out, sir.
1:36:37	Q: My immediate response is that, even for a split second, I get this feeling of wholeness.
1:36:44	K: Just a minute. Because we have talked about it or it is actuality?
1:36:50	Q: It is an actuality. K: No, be clear, be careful. Because Mrs Porter talked about being whole and the marvellous feeling of it, that very verbalisation has helped me to capture something through the words. Be careful. It is not an actuality.
1:37:23	Q: You reach a stage whereby you cannot believe yourself either way. You can be in a position whereby you can doubt yourself, endlessly.
1:37:38	K: Sir, look, we started asking, why are we so occupied? Because when you are so occupied, there is no space. Right? No freedom. When the mind is turning over, chattering away by itself, there’s no freedom. And one asks, why doesn’t one stop being occupied? That’s all.
1:38:19	Q: Something must follow that, sir. These moments of freedom from the known, these epiphanies, these moments of perception, must then lead on to something.
1:38:31	K: It does. Q: They form a new conditioning. We’ve been talking about states of being all this time, but being must lead to doing. Perhaps there is the root of change.
1:38:47	K: Even that word, sir… If the universe has no cause for existence, why should we have a cause? I don’t know, this leads…
1:39:24	Q: Does this habit of occupation damage your brain cells? The habit of occupation, will it damage the brain cells? So it becomes a habit of your brain.
1:39:50	K: Isn’t it time to stop? Our tummies may be occupied.