Krishnamurti - Opposites

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR82DSS1.2 - Opposites
Brockwood Park, UK - 13 June 1982
Discussion with Staff and Students 1.2

0:19	Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?
0:36	Questioner: Krishnaji, why is it that in spite of realising or understanding what the causes of attachment are, and in spite of observing and having experienced disastrous consequences of it, why is it that one still cannot be totally free of it? One is still clinging to things and to people.
1:09	K: Any other question?
1:17	Q: I wonder if we could collectively look at experience and what it means in our lives, because I think so many of us feel that we learn through experience and that experience is very important in our lives.
1:40	Q: Krishnaji, this morning in our morning group the staff and students were talking about the division between staff and students and what could be done about it. Some people thought it was rather bad, the division between staff and students.
2:00	Q: Also, how can we help our children if we are not responsible for other people’s feelings? And it seems that we can’t do much to help people in their lives. How can we help bring up our children, in what way?
2:35	K: I don’t know. The vast majority of people in the world seem to like violence. I will answer your question presently. They seem to like wars, killing each other, they seem to like national, linguistic, religious divisions, and one wonders if one can bring about a group of people who are free of all that. Not merely intellectually, but actually in daily life not to belong to any group, to any sect, to any nationality, to any organised belief or religious dogmas, rituals and all that business – to be totally free of all that first. And can we bring about a group of people who are completely involved in bringing about a transformation in themselves, psychologically, and so outwardly? Completely dedicated to it, committed to it, involved in it, so that such a group may have very little outward conscious effect but perhaps they might have unconscious, deeper effect. Is that possible? Here we are, a group of people who more or less have thrown off all the absurdities of religious dogmas and all that but may be somewhat committed to a particular group or sect or nationality. Can we begin with that first and then move more deeply into the matter? Otherwise talking seems so endlessly useless. What do you say to that?
6:01	Q: Krishnaji, you said that the small group might not have very much outer effect but you said that it may have a much greater inner effect. Could you clarify that? I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say that it wouldn’t have very much outer effect?
6:21	K: Sir, I mean after all, suppose I have heard somebody for the last twenty years, every time he comes here or goes there, and I have more or less studied, meditated, whatever one does, and I intellectually agree with what he talks about, but emotionally inwardly – not ‘emotionally’, sorry – inwardly it doesn’t seem to affect very greatly. We are what we are, rather petty and all the rest of it, and carry on agreeing intellectually something which seems so obvious if one goes into it, and that intellectual comprehension seems to have so little effect. And when we raise all the problems – how to bring it out, how to relate the intellectual concept to daily life and so on. What is wrong, if I may ask, having a group of people who are completely, not organisationally, but inwardly committed to a global relationship, the ending of... no, the killing of another human being for whatever cause it might be or principle, and involved in understanding not only themselves but concerned with the transformation of society and so on. Is that possible? Or is it all a matter of verbal exchange and discussion, with a little, very little actual reality of all that in one’s life?
8:44	Q: Sir, I think my question is: how does the inner work of this small group have a global effect?
8:52	K: Does it matter? Does it matter if one is actually involved in daily life with this inquiry into the deeper levels of consciousness and going beyond it? It may or may not affect the whole world but such a group has a vitality, an energy, a drive which may affect the world. After all, sir, a man like that crazy Hitler affected the whole world.
9:45	Q: But sir, in this state is there some outward action that is implicit or is just the very fact of being without violence, being what you described, an effect in itself?
10:07	K: I don’t have to answer. You ask them what they think.
10:11	Q: Well, you give the example of Hitler. Obviously people like that did outward things on a horrendous scale. You were describing a state which could be very subjective within the person and not have very much outer expression.
10:27	K: But madame, I don’t separate the outer and the inner.
10:34	Q: One may not separate but... K: Ah, but you have separated it.
10:39	Q: Well it’s very hard, I think, for most of us to see how a totally subjective inner state can affect the enormous problems. K: But when you say inner you have already divided the outer and the inner. I feel the inner and the outer are a constant movement, interrelated, not separated, like a tide going in and out. Water is going in and out all the time. Similarly, it is not there is the world and the world must be affected or society must be changed if I change, it is a interrelationship in which this activity of comprehension, intelligence clears the field.
11:41	Q: But does the communication have to take place through a physical manifestation, one’s behaviour actually physically impinging on one’s surroundings?
11:55	K: Sir, that raises a question which is: why don’t human beings, including oneself, bring about this intelligent activity of not living an isolated life, separate from the whole of humanity? Why do we say it won’t affect or will affect? What are we concerned about? Changing the vast mass of people who are not interested in all this – they are really interested in football. Their heroes are the players, whether it is religious players or the football players. They are not interested in all this.
12:52	Q: But those people have the votes and they can elect the politicians we’ve got, and those politicians would...
12:58	K: So what will you do? You have elected them. The politicians are not going to listen to what we are talking about. So why are we concerned about the politicians, about changing or bringing about a change in the vast mass of people?
13:25	Q: Because that is society and we do feel concerned.
13:28	K: We are facing disaster, sir, every day it is getting worse and worse, right throughout the world. And can we change all that? Will the politicians or the religious hierarchy of the Western world listen to all this? Or the Eastern world? Certainly not. They are not concerned with all this. So what do we do? Become cynical, indifferent? Or see that we are not different from the world. We are the world.
14:20	Q: I think to create a group like you say is not easy because even here in Brockwood you cannot approach some person because you feel that they don’t want to talk, and when you have a problem you say to somebody I want to go deeper into this problem and then that person says, ‘You think a lot about yourself,’ or, ‘I don’t have time’.
14:59	K: All right, let him go. What are you concerned about?
15:02	Q: What?
15:04	K: If I am not interested in what you are talking about, what are you going to do?
15:11	Q: Nothing. Continue with my problem.
15:14	K: Face it. Why do you want to discuss it with me?
15:19	Q: Because in some things I can’t find, I can’t investigate more, I can’t go deeper, and I would like to talk...
15:28	K: So that means, doesn’t it, madame, that we depend on others? We depended on religious leaders and so on, so on, so on, now I want... I live in a small community, large or small – we say, ‘I must discuss this matter with another’, and he rejects me and I feel hurt and I don’t know what to do and I say, ‘I can’t go into myself deeply’. You see, we are back again in the same old principle. Which is, we depend, if I may most respectfully point out, we depend on others.
16:17	Q: Sir, the dropping of attachments to nationalism and divisions and so on implies the dropping of the concern for the effect.
16:28	K: I didn’t quite hear. I didn’t quite understand what you said.
16:34	Q: The dropping of feelings of nationalism and being tied in with a certain group and so on, that also implies when it’s dropped, the dropping of the concern for the effect that I may have.
16:51	K: Sir, may I ask a question – not only you, sir, but generally – do we realise, not verbally but profoundly, that we are the world?
17:08	Q: Sir, are you saying that when I have a feeling of anger about something it’s the same anger of Hitler or anybody else? I mean, the feelings that we have, even though they may be smaller and we may not do terrible things, the essence is the same. So there are the grains of all those emotions in us, that we have to drop once we see them in ourselves. And nobody else could show them to us.
17:44	K: Madame, I wonder if you are answering my question. Do we feel actually, not in abstraction, actually in our life, in our heart, that we are essentially the world and the world is us? When one has that feeling there is a totally different approach to life. Has one that kind of feeling? Or we are talking of the world as something separate from me, and me affecting the world, affecting society, and so on, so on? I think this is a basic question which we should discuss, if you don’t mind. Are we isolated human beings? You living in this country and I living in California or some other place – are we isolated and acting in isolation? I wish you would discuss this matter.
19:18	Q: I think that is how I see it, sir, yes.
19:22	K: And each one is trying to affect the other, each one is separate and trying to become... find unity. Or the very idea of isolation and individual is totally an illusion. I would like to discuss this. I may be wrong. I would like to go into this matter, since you want to discuss. Are we isolated individuals and so tribal, and so family as a unit, nation as a unit, and so on, so on, so on. The implications of that are enormous. That I as an individual am separate from everybody else. I as an individual have my own soul which must evolve, which must grow, which must ultimately find heaven or whatever it is.
20:55	Q: Krishnaji, when you talk about attachment to religions, attachment to nationalities, I think that most... having talked with many of the students here I don’t think many of them have this feeling.
21:10	K: All right, sir. Q: Probably none. But I still think this feeling of ‘me’...
21:14	K:...which is isolation, which is me as an individual – is that... I wish you would talk about it, go into it.
21:27	Q: If we’ve never felt that, the feeling of being the world...
21:31	Q: If we have never felt this feeling of being the world, then how can we discuss it? She is saying if we have never felt this feeling of being the world, how do we discuss it?
21:50	K: First of all, are you separate from other individuals? Are you an isolated human being living in a very complex society, struggling for yourself and your family and so on, as a single unit in opposition to various other units? Let’s forget the world, that you are the world. Do you live that way? Do you think that way?
22:45	Q: I think most of us in one form or another do.
22:50	K: Now, what does that lead to? The consequences of such an attitude towards life. Obviously competition, each one out for himself, each one doing his own thing, as it’s called, each one being ambitious, striving to be successful, competitive and so on, which is a form of violence. No?
23:36	Q: Is it?
23:37	K: No? Q: Yes.
23:41	K: And that ultimately leads to war. If you see the consequences of that, not verbally but actually, what do you do with such perception, just remain with it?
24:02	Q: Krishnaji, I think this point we’ve got to get really clear because I am not sure whether everyone gets this particular point, the point you just made. I mean, not so many people have responded, also, so we don’t know.
24:17	K: Is it that we are frightened not to be isolated? I wish... I don’t know, how can I go on with such a basic question as this?
24:31	Q: Isn’t it that the perception of this is very limited so most people tend to see a security in being part of a limited group? K: Yes.
24:43	Q: Therefore...
24:44	K: But what does that lead to? You must follow it through.
24:48	Q: Well, because one only looks and says that it’s safe to be part of this school or country.
24:54	K: If I am a... No. If I am born in India and I am brought up with as a certain Brahmana and so on, so on, so on, my mind, my activity, my whole existence is limited, and that very limitation brings about conflict.
25:16	Q: But it is perceived in a short-term view.
25:19	K: No, I am going into it. I perceive it is limited. Right? If it is limited, whatever is limited must bring about its own destruction.
25:33	Q: That is what is not seen. It’s seen as something protective.
25:38	Q: I think people see it but I don’t think they see an alternative and so they suffer. I think people do see it but I don’t think they see an alternative in practical terms, of earning bread for their wives and their families and still being able to feel at one with the world.
25:55	K: Sir, if one sees what is false, the truth is there. You don’t have to find a substitute.
26:03	Q: But I don’t think people see the truth is going to bring them bread. I know that’s a very mundane thing to say.
26:13	Q: I think we see that intellectually only.
26:19	K: Now, suppose – not ‘suppose’ – I do feel very strongly that I am not an isolated human being. I exist through interrelations with all other human beings. I feel that very strongly. I feel that as a fact to me. Now how am I going to convince you? Which means you must first listen to what one is saying, then let us see how far we go into it. But apparently we don’t. We are always putting up barriers. Not that one must accept what another says, including myself, but the fact, look at it, factually, daily. If I am an individual separate from all other people, I am a single unit. That very concept has made me limited. And my conditioning is this, that I am a single human being unrelated totally with all the others and I have to struggle, struggle for myself. That is my conditioning. That is how the world exists, from the highest authority in the religious world and political world – we are separate individuals with separate nationalities, separate tribal activity. That is my background. Now how do I break that background? Is it an illusion? Is it something false or actual? You don’t even...
28:34	Q: As the gentleman pointed out, though one might see that, one’s daily relationship with actions are governed by a structure where that is reinforced. One has to earn a living, one has to be related to a few people around yourself.
28:52	K: I know. Q: So that all that...
28:53	K: The few people around me are all... believe they are separate individuals...
29:00	Q: Yes, that is the way... K: How am I going to meet them? You don’t go into it. We state a fact like that but we don’t go into it. How am I, surrounded by all of you – sorry! – in daily life, whether I am in this country or in India or in America, it is the same problem: how am I – I am sorry, I am not being personal – how am I going to show you? I explain it, I will go into it very carefully, step by step, not only physically but psychologically in consciousness and so on, so on. You listen to it. You say, Perhaps it may be true but how am I to live with a group of people who are individualistic, separative, national, and so on? Which means you have created a problem without understanding the depth of the statement. If one understands that, you will meet it.
30:24	Q: I think quite a lot of us may state the facts quite... may state facts from what we see, but we aren’t used to, or we aren’t quite sure how to investigate.
30:43	K: Are you saying, sir, that we haven’t the capacity or we haven’t actually investigated anything – we accept? Now, are you interested in investigating this question? That means tracing out to the very end of it, not say, ‘Well, what am I to do in life, surrounded by idiots?’ I feel that’s a wrong question.
31:21	Q: I think quite a lot of us are just... even though we are interested intellectually, aren’t really prepared to go into it step by step right through to the end. We’re just wanting to let you babble on for an hour and half, whatever. I am not sure.
31:42	K: Look, sir, here is a problem. You feel this, that this concept, this concept of an individual is totally illusory. Now, how are you going to explain to me? Who, I am convinced, my conditioning, my whole upbringing has been that I am an individual, that I must struggle for myself otherwise be destroyed, and so on, so on, so on. How are you going to show me? Am I willing to listen to you, first of all? Am I willing to find out for myself if what you say is true or false? Or do I say, ‘If this happens how am I to live with other people?’ You understand my question?
32:49	Q: Krishnaji, I am willing to find out because I feel that if we, going back, you said to forget the fact that we are the world – well, I can’t forget it because if we are the world, then we can’t be individuals.
33:07	K: Why do you accept what I say, what the speaker says?
33:11	Q: I don’t accept it, it’s something that I’ve been thinking about.
33:12	K: Why? Don’t you feel you are the... So, let us find out together, shall we?
33:17	Q: But I do feel that we are the world.
33:20	K: I feel that.
33:22	Q: Okay then, so we both feel it.
33:26	K: What’s that? Q: We both feel it, she said.
33:29	K: Now, we both feel that – right? Good. Now let’s investigate if what we are talking about it is actual or is something illusory, concocted by some whole hoax, some idiotic notion.
33:46	Q: But I do feel that by seeing that we are the world then the fact that everybody’s individual can only be an illusion.
34:02	K: I don’t quite follow what you are saying – sorry.
34:07	Q: By seeing that we are the world, in which...
34:10	K: Ah, not ‘by seeing’.
34:12	Q: All right, realising and thinking...
34:14	K: No, have you realised it? Q: Yes.
34:18	K: Now, if you have realised it, then what is your relationship with the rest of the world which doesn’t realise?
34:29	Q: Vulnerable. Very vulnerable.
34:37	K: I don’t quite... Why be vulnerable? No, wait. What do you mean ‘vulnerable’? Why shouldn’t we be vulnerable?
34:46	Q: We should be... K: Which is to be sensitive. Vulnerable means to be sensitive but we use the word: we will get hurt, we will be wounded, we will have no place, and so on. You understand? So what do you and I do? We are living here at Brockwood or in London with a lot of people who don’t... who think we are nuts or we are illusory, we have some kind of cranky exotic ideas. What do we do? Just keep quiet? Which means either silently accept – you follow? – silently accept what is going on or you react against all that and withdraw into a cell, or what? Go on. Please, I want... I don’t want to help you. Go into it.
36:28	Q: Well, if when you realise that you are the world and you live that way realising it, then being the world you have an effect.
36:41	K: What is your relationship then with the world, with your husband who says you are nuts – what’s your relationship with him?
36:57	Q: Affection. That person has affection for everybody.
37:06	K: You see, you’re all talking theoretically, that’s what I am... I, the speaker says: this is the way to live, which is, that there is no separate existence, and if you think in separatism, then you are inevitably going to create war, destroy each other. Now, how am I going to convince you of all this, show it to you? It’s my responsibility. Right? Or do you say, Sorry, this is my own understanding, I can’t do... people won’t listen. I keep quiet. I won’t. It’s my responsibility, of something which I have seen as truth, it is my responsibility to work for it. You follow? I don’t want to sit back and do nothing about it; it’s my responsibility.
38:32	Q: So if you realise or you think or you feel that you are the world and world is you, then... and you are living with a load of people that think you are nuts, you would try to live in a certain lifestyle to show that they’re wrong, or you try to convey to them.
38:58	K: Sir, look, I think that... in what way is it affecting you? What do you do with a statement of that kind?
39:10	Q: Examine them.
39:12	K: Are you examining it or you are rejecting it, or you are saying it’s too complicated, that’s too much bother?
39:23	Q: Surely if you have to try to do that, it is still a theoretical issue, it’s a mental idea about reality.
39:32	K: What’s that sir, I can’t hear?
39:34	Q: I was saying, if you have to try to do it, surely it’s not a reality. It’s still just an idea.
39:47	K: Then you’re not...
39:55	Q: I can’t see why if you don’t talk about ideas to the people around you, they are going to say that you are nuts. I mean, presumably, if we really see what you are saying, you have a better relationship with the people around you and they can see that. I mean, I don’t see what one would do to make them think you were nutty, unless you just talked about the ideas.
40:27	K: We are not talking about ideas.
40:29	Q: No, I know when we’re together now it’s different, but with people around us in our daily life there’s no reason why... K: After all, if I am the world – I mean, to me it is a fact – in that feeling there is tremendous feeling of responsibility which is brought about through love. I dislike this word, to use ‘love’, but I will use it. In the feeling of this there is love and that love has its own responsibility. Now, then you will ask: what will you do? But that’s a wrong question. I say: please find out why you don’t feel this, see the truth of this. What is blocking you? Why don’t you see the actual fact of it?
41:31	Q: Krishnaji, is it that the most of us live on a level of what do you do – what you just said – whereas that sense of inner reality is a bit of an abstraction. We live on the thing: what do we do about, whatever comes up. K: Look, madame, that’s not my... you are not answering my question. Not ‘what will you do?’ – which is the future.
41:58	Q: I am saying that’s what... K: I know. I know this is what we ask. That is, you want a guarantee of what you will do.
42:06	Q: Can I give an example? I have found that it’s thought that spoils things, because when somebody has done something to me that hurts me, when I am face to face with them I actually don’t feel the hurt or against them. I feel a love for them, but I doubt if it’s the same love that you’re talking about, but I feel I do. But when I go away and start thinking about what that person has done then I start to get those feelings that one wished I wouldn’t have. So it’s the thought that makes it.
42:55	K: You see, this is not a problem to you. As if you are starving, it becomes a problem. You do something about it. Apparently this is not a tremendous issue so we are skirting around it all the time.
43:18	Q: I disagree with that. I think people are suffering tremendously but they don’t see an alternative.
43:23	K: Ah! You see? You want an alternative.
43:30	Q: We want to do, we want to be what you saying.
43:35	K: Right.
43:36	Q: We can feel at one with the world.
43:39	K: Right, sir.
43:40	Q: But we are surrounded by pragmatists that keep putting us in situations where we have to do interesting things like earn a living, bring up children, have responsible jobs, communicate with people who don’t understand.
43:53	K: I know all that, sir. I know. Here you are. I don’t have to go out there.
43:57	Q: And we feel lost because we can personally feel that in an ideal community of people who feel this there wouldn’t be a problem, but we don’t have that ideal community.
44:12	K: We haven’t. Here you are, sir. I don’t have to go out there. In Brockwood that exists. So what shall I do? What’s my responsibility?
44:25	Q: Well, I think we need to be able to translate your truth. I know it sounds a silly thing but we need to be able to translate your truth in more pragmatic terms to deal with people we’re coping with.
44:39	K: My question, sir, is: why don’t you see this thing immediately, instantly?
44:45	Q: Well, my... K: No, just a minute, sir. Instantly see the truth of this instead of all the arguments and all the pros and cons of it.
44:57	Q: I do, but when I see... K: No. If you see it, why do you move away from it?
45:07	Q: I suppose in order to go about my life.
45:12	K: Which is what?
45:15	Q: Being an inefficient person. K: Back again.
45:19	Q: But Krishnaji, why do you say, why do you ask, ‘Why don’t you see it instantly?’ I mean, why do you ask that question. I don’t understand? K: Because... You see something instantly, don’t you?
45:40	Q: Yes, when you see... K: Yes. I am asking: why don’t you see instantly something so palpably real? Why do you discuss all round it? What’s the matter with your brain?
46:01	Q: Krishnaji, even the fact that we are here together, it seems or it feels to me that it has a very individual purpose, purposes, if you see what I mean. Like, even the fact that I am here to try to see that I am part of the world has very individual purposes.
46:27	Q: The very fact that we’re here, most of us have individual purposes...
46:31	K: Of course... Q: Even in some inquiry like this.
46:35	K: Yes. What is the individual purposes? What are they?
46:39	Q: I mean, like I feel that I am an individual and I have certain problems and that I come here and live in this community to try to solve kind of my own problems.
46:57	K: You come here to solve your problems – right?
47:01	Q: Not exactly, but yes.
47:02	K: Yes, suppose. Who is going to help you?
47:08	Q: I don’t know. I feel like maybe the fact that I realise that it is not my problem but the world problem will make me to kind of approach it differently.
47:21	K: So, if you realise it is the problem of everybody...
47:25	Q: Is as if I were realising on my own.
47:27	K: Yes. No. You see, you are again saying your problem is separate from other people’s problems.
47:36	Q: Because that is the way I really feel it.
47:39	K: You see, you feel it that way. Now, someone points out to you that your problem is more or less similar with the rest, other problems which other human beings have. Right? That your problem is not separate. Right? And all problems are interrelated. Right? Now, what will you do after hearing that statement?
48:14	Q: I would say: then what are we going to do?
48:16	K: Yes, that’s it. So what shall we do?
48:27	Q: We seem to have been going round and round.
48:30	K: Yes, sir, you’re going round and round.
48:34	Q: In and out. Is there a fear that if we penetrate or really go into it, step by step, some of them, or at least myself, that at one time I felt that would you really want to live, would you be able to stand up to the responsibility of seeing what you have seen? Like, if I see that the world is violent and that I am violent and that... K: Yes, sir. Sir, look, sir, I feel, personally, that life is sacred. A human life is sacred and therefore I won’t kill anybody. You follow? I won’t. That’s horror. For my country, for my god, for my anything, as a principle I won’t kill. Now, how am I going to convey this to you, and want to show the truth of it, when you are saying, ‘Well, life is a matter of killing each other for survival’ – how am I going to show it to you? How am I going to say, ‘Look, for God’s sake look at this? It’s so important’. You must treat life as something holy, not just to destroy, to compete, all the rest of it.
50:58	Q: Sir, it seems to me that you can only show it to me if I have got the intention to understand it.
51:04	K: Now, how am I going to help you to have that intention? Here we are, a hundred of us, how am I going to show it to you?
51:23	Q: You are trying to show it to us now by trying to...
51:28	K: Show it to you – but will you take it, live with it, drink it, put it in your heart, do whatever you will, but be with it for the rest of your life? Will you?
51:39	Q: Yes. K: Oh, no.
51:41	Q: Yes. K: You may. Then – follow it up – then what will you do in a society that’s at war, that has been trained to war?
52:01	Q: To not be part of it.
52:04	K: Of course you are not part of it. They won’t let you be alone. They want you to be part of it.
52:13	Q: Well, the old method was to sacrifice yourself for your beliefs.
52:17	K: It is not a belief. Q: No, I am sorry.
52:20	K: It’s my blood.
52:21	Q: I am sorry, sir, I said the old method was to sacrifice yourself for your beliefs.
52:26	K: No, I don’t want to sacrifice myself. I think that’s wrong. Q: I do too.
52:32	K: So what shall I do? You’re not facing it, you see. I don’t want to become a martyr to some silly idea. I don’t want to be killed by a mob with bayonets. I won’t. To me the whole thing so repulsive.
53:00	Q: Yes, but who makes the martyr? You say, ‘I don’t want to become a martyr, I don’t want to sacrifice myself because for some beliefs or idea’, but I... K: You see, it is not an idea. That’s all I am saying...
53:15	Q: That’s right. So who is the martyr? I mean, if someone else makes you a martyr... I mean, who makes the martyr, if you think yourself the martyr?
53:23	K: A tomato? Sorry! It sounded like tomato! Go on. It’s a relief to laugh a bit. I feel very strongly about this matter. I don’t want to be a martyr, I don’t want to sacrifice myself, for a principle, for a belief or some other conscious or unconscious reason, but I see, actually feel, in my blood, in my guts, in my heart, that to kill another is the most unholy thing. I am living in a society, whether in India or here or somewhere else, that says as a nation we must protect ourselves, therefore arm, therefore be prepared to kill. What then shall I do? What’s my responsibility, what’s my relationship to something which is so ugly, diabolical? What shall I do? What’s my relation? Put yourself in that position – what will you do? You see, you are all so...
55:21	Q: Sir, you can’t stop the politicians but you can stop yourself killing. If I see the fact of my being violent and with my words and actions, I am killing other people, I am going to stop doing it.
55:34	K: Yes, you have stopped. All right.
55:36	Q: Yes. K: Not ‘I am going to stop doing it’.
55:38	Q: Yes, I stop but... K: You stop. Then what is your relationship with the rest of us who think the other way, who act, live the other way? What’s your relationship?
55:51	Q: I think that’s where we are stuck.
56:01	K: Why?
56:02	Q: Because we only feel we can speak our truth and we feel are impotent to do anything else...
56:07	K: No, sir, I am asking, if you will forgive me, I am asking: why are you stuck?
56:12	Q: Well... K: No, don’t give me reason. I know why; but why? You answer me, why are you stuck?
56:25	Q: Because I don’t know which...
56:26	K: Sir, do you know what happens when a river has a full volume of water it surmounts everything, moves around every rock and goes over the rock. Now, if you have that vitality, that energy, that drive, that in your relationship with other people who are completely committed to murder, then what’s your movement, what’s your... how do you meet it? How do you meet opposition? Let’s discuss that a little. How do you meet opposition? Here we are, you are really opposing me. Now, how do we meet each other? How do you meet something which is diametrically opposite to you?
57:44	Q: Sir, is it possible to meet it by being unable to be destroyed?
57:49	K: No, sir, have you answered my question?
57:53	Q: Probably not.
57:59	Q: By observing it and not reacting against it.
58:03	K: Here we are. Please take actual fact. I am saying something to which you are opposed. And how do I meet this opposition? How do you meet – wait a minute – how do you meet a fascist when you are not a fascist? How do you meet a totalitarian when you are not? Or how do you meet a Catholic when you are something else?
58:41	Q: But you don’t meet it. You don’t meet, sir.
58:46	Q: You talk to them. Q: You can’t meet them.
58:50	K: You don’t meet them? Of course you do meet them.
58:55	Q: Yes, but... K: In a party or in a club or when you are walking down the street or when you go to somebody’s house there are people who are opposed to you.
59:05	Q: But what happens if that fascist threatens to kill you?
59:18	K: No, but you are... No, that’s not the point. How do you meet opposition, I am asking.
59:28	Q: Without fear?
59:35	Q: You don’t feed it by being against it.
59:40	K: You see, you are not investigating even the question. How do I meet opposition? Here you are, you are really opposing what I am saying. Don’t fool yourself – you are really opposing, consciously or unconsciously. How do I meet you? Do I turn my back on you?
1:00:05	Q: Is there anything else you can do except talk to us?
1:00:11	K: We are going to find out. Do I turn my back on to you?
1:00:18	Q: With love. You have a feeling of love which might do more than your talking.
1:00:33	K: You see, you have made it... you have settled the problem, but is that so? First of all, you are opposed to me. What is my relationship to that opposition? Is it a reaction and therefore it is another opposite? You are following all this? Or I meet it – you see, I can tell you and then you’ll discuss with me. How do you meet it? Please discuss this with me, would you, for a couple of minutes? How do you actually meet somebody who is opposed to you?
1:01:42	Q: You could try and find out the nature of the opposition and why they feel it.
1:01:46	K: You know what the opposition is. You think you must not kill, life is sacred. You not just verbally but inwardly very deeply. You feel that way and I feel the opposite. How do you meet me? I know how I meet you. Because I am opposed to you I will do everything to destroy you. Religions have done it calling heresy, heretics, burnt them, killed them, tortured them, and the totalitarians do it that way. Right? The so-called democratic society does it more politely but it is the same fact that goes on. Right? Now, how will you meet me? Please, this is an important question; go into it.
1:02:53	Q: It does bring up an energy in one when somebody else is...
1:02:59	K: Not ‘when’ – here we are. Q: Yes. It brings up an energy that can be destructive.
1:03:12	Q: I think I meet you in listening to what you said...
1:03:16	K: You have listened to me.
1:03:19	Q: Yes, and that’s the way that I meet you.
1:03:23	K: You haven’t met me. You have listened to me.
1:03:25	Q: Yes... K: That’s not the same. You have verbally accepted what I have stated. That’s nothing.
1:03:34	Q: (Inaudible)
1:03:37	K: No, madame, I am asking you, please, how does one meet something, an opposite that you don’t... within all your being you say, ‘That’s repulsive, I won’t touch it’? How do you meet it? You understand what I am talking about. If you have... if one has the feeling of the opposite – you understand what I am saying? – you are not meeting it. Right? Is that clear or not?
1:04:26	Q: You are saying therefore you are opposed to it, you have a feeling to the opposite – is that what you mean? You are saying therefore you are in opposition to the thing, to the other thing. K: Now just a minute. If I say, ‘Life is rubbish, it doesn’t matter whom you kill’, and I meet you who feel quite the opposite, how do you meet me? If you think in terms of the opposites, we won’t meet each other.
1:05:03	Q: We’ll have an argument. K: That’s all. That’s what is going on now. You get it?
1:05:10	Q: Yes. K: So – just a minute – if you meet violence with violence, it is the same: violence. Right? If you meet as opposing me, opposing another, it is still... you are in the same field. Right?
1:05:37	Q: Yes.
1:05:39	K: Then how will you meet me? Not belong to the same field. You see, you are not going... Psychologically, do we realise that any opposition of any kind, either from you or from me, we are both playing the same game. Is that clear? I wonder. Yes or no? Q: Yes.
1:06:37	K: We are both playing cricket, then there is no fun. Is your mind, brain, your reactions, are they opposing? I believe this and I will hold on to it, I will fight for it. And you have your belief and you also say, I will fight for it. It is a principle according to which I must live therefore I must fight you. Does that state of mind exist in each of us?
1:07:21	Q: Is it the being willing to fight for it that makes for the trouble?
1:07:26	K: Opposition, that’s what I am saying. The same thing, madame, don’t reduce to ‘fight’. Opposition.
1:07:32	Q: No, but you said when you come up against something that is repugnant...
1:07:36	K: No, forget all those, they are just words. Get the meaning of it. Q: Right. But if you run into something that is violent or pro-killing, that is inevitably, if you feel against it, repugnant. Now, do you put that aside or is that...
1:07:55	K: Then I say, please, the feeling of repugnance, anti, pro is in the same area.
1:08:06	Q: So any reaction...
1:08:09	K: Any reaction to opposition, like saying...
1:08:13	Q: Is it the difference between fact and idea? We are concerned, we are reacting to you in terms of ideas and you are meeting us in terms of facts.
1:08:29	K: Sir, all that I am saying is two opposites are the same. That’s clear, isn’t it? No? If I hate you and you hate me, we are in the same... It is the same. If I am violent and you are violent, there is not much difference between us. But as long as we have that feeling of retaliation – I am using these words quickly, please don’t stick me to the words – the opposite, the duality, we are then fighting each other. Now, is my... am I free entirely from that feeling? No, please, think with me, don’t go to sleep.
1:09:32	Q: Krishnaji, what about if I meet somebody who is for the killing of anything? If I meet somebody who is violent and...
1:09:45	K: Not ‘if’, please. You understand my question, what I asked?
1:09:50	Q: Well, what I was going to say is that, what about if I understand that that person is part of the world as I am?
1:09:59	K: Oh no, that’s all theoretical.
1:10:01	Q: But then if I say I will try to understand...
1:10:04	K: You are not answering my question. Please, don’t bring up another question. I will bring it up after you have answered my question – that is ordinary courtesy.
1:10:18	Q: Krishnaji, do you mean that one should get away from the content of the opposition and see only that there is opposition?
1:10:25	K: No. Is the mind, is your mind or whatever it is, free of feeling of opposition? ‘I am against something or for something’.
1:10:48	Q: I don’t think it can be because one’s still in the realm of ideas. So it seems so long as one thinks in ideas one must be in terms of opposition. K: I am not talking of ideas.
1:11:01	Q: No, what I am saying is opposition.
1:11:04	K: Opposition. You are violent and I am violent. That’s not an idea. I get angry, you get angry. You hurt me, I try to hurt you. So, there is not a totally different action. Right? We are moving in the same area. Is that clear? That is, surely. Now, is there a freedom from this feeling of for, against, wanting to stand by a principle and willing to kill somebody for a principle? You are missing something so good.
1:11:59	Q: Krishna? What I feel when I am in opposition to somebody is that I am fighting myself in that person and that there isn’t any difference between me, then I have all freedom...
1:12:12	K: So, will you be free of that feeling of the opposite? You understand what I am saying? Please, let’s discuss it together if you don’t mind. The feeling, the opposition doesn’t exist.
1:12:35	Q: Yes.
1:12:37	K: Ah, it’s very subtle, very complex this thing. Which is... Q: Without a feeling of abandonment.
1:12:53	K: No. You see, you... It doesn’t mean I am neutral. Q: No.
1:13:05	K: It doesn’t mean I am just vague. It doesn’t mean I am sloppy. To me, the opposite doesn’t exist.
1:13:19	Q: It is totally disarming, your position. Krishnamurti, is it totally disarming the opposition?
1:13:29	K: I am not concerned about the opposition.
1:13:32	Q: No, no...
1:13:33	K: I am concerned, I am asking: how do I meet the opposite?
1:13:39	Q: Right. Can I say something?
1:13:41	K: Yes, please.
1:13:43	Q: What I know is that if I find I am in opposition to something, that is something to which I am still attached.
1:13:53	K: That’s quite right. Q: Right. So that I only have to look for me. It’s like...
1:13:58	K: Not ‘me’. No, I won’t...
1:14:00	Q: The only person I have to deal with is me.
1:14:03	K: Yes, but I am interested in finding out: is there a brain or a mind that has not opposites?
1:14:22	Q: No.
1:14:24	K: Well, you are too quick. Now wait a minute, perhaps we’ll understand this better. Has love an opposite, which is hate, which is arrogance, vanity? Then it’s not love. No, this is a really very complex, subtle question if I may point out. I am not trying to be subtle or think I am subtle but I am just stating it, that to have the capacity of a mind that has no sense that it has opposites, that it’s different, that you will fight the other opposites.
1:15:33	Q: I do feel that a lot, and what I was saying, what I was trying to say is that the island where I feel opposites, I am still unable to see myself with someone else. I mean, it’s like I need to be near that person if I am working with somebody and I have a lot of difficulty with that person, that’s my gift. It is difficult to see that at times.
1:16:02	K: Difficulties are not oppositions, are they?
1:16:07	Q: Well, it’s like I have a lot of opposition sometimes in the things that I do.
1:16:11	K: Look, I am opposed something my wife says to me.
1:16:17	Q: Yes.
1:16:23	K: And she also opposes me. Right? We are in that same area, same relationship. So we are everlastingly fighting. Now I am asking – please just give a little thought to it – I am asking: is there a relationship between her and me in which there is no saying, ‘I am right you are wrong, you are right I am wrong’? Opposing each other about anything, even the kettle. You understand? No, this is a very... go into it. That means there is only the fact, not the opposite of that fact. There is only ‘what is’ and nothing else. No, you are missing the... If you see this really, it will wipe away conflict. When the two opposites meet there’s conflict – between my wife and me who are opposites. She wants to do something, I want to do something else. She wants to go to the beach and I want to play golf. And there it is. I yield or she yields, or we are indifferent, or we say, I say to her, ‘Darling, do go to the sea, let me enjoy my own way’, but it is still – you understand? So, there is no opposite. I wish you would see this. There is no opposite to violence. ‘The opposite is non-violence’ – that’s an invention of thought. But actuality is violence and it has no opposition. The ‘ending’ is the violence. I wonder if you see it. So, do we meet life, society – this is my point – do we meet society opposing everything that it’s doing? Or accepting certain things it’s doing? You follow? Do I attack it or be absorbed by it? If I am attacking it, then I am part of their game, I am in their court. If I am not attacking it, what happens, what then takes place? I wish you would come into this.
1:19:36	Q: There is dialogue.
1:19:42	K: Dialogue? But the opposite doesn’t want to have a dialogue with me. He says go, buzz off. Which you are doing. Unconsciously you are doing it now.
1:20:02	Q: It’s like, if you are presenting something to somebody and they don’t want to listen and they think you are nutty and all the things that...
1:20:10	K: That very simple. Q: Yes, but what I think is that if I spend time dealing with the content of what somebody’s saying to me and trying to shift it or have them move, I am not going to get anywhere. It’s like all that stuff is useless, but if you are always talking to the person, they seem to align with you in a way which you don’t often expect at the beginning. It’s like you can’t change them so don’t even try.
1:20:42	K: I am not concerned about my wife. I am concerned how I meet her opposition.
1:20:49	Q: Right. Well, it may be by doing what she wants to do.
1:20:54	K: Ah! Then she dominates. I keep on yielding, I become a doormat. I don’t want to do either. I am concerned with having a mind that has no opposite. Oh, you don’t meet this! Therefore, I don’t meet head-on the society. I don’t say, ‘I must change it, I must do this and that’. I see that my mind which has no opposite – please, you don’t believe it; I say ‘my mind’, not ‘it’s mine’ but doesn’t matter – I don’t meet society on its level. The society’s level is conflict. Right? I won’t meet society on those grounds, even my wife. So, what takes place between me and my wife and society?
1:22:36	Q: It’s like I come back to the same thing for me, which is, I can only present myself.
1:22:45	K: Ah, I am not presenting myself. You are still sticking to... Forgive me for pointing out. Q: All right.
1:22:59	K: I am totally – forgive me – I am totally different from my wife. Right? I won’t meet her at her level. That level may be very high or very low. I won’t meet her at that level, any level, because I am not opposed to her. So, what is – please go into it a little bit – what is the state of my mind which has no opposites? You understand? This is a very complex thing. To us there is always the opposite. I am not good but I will be good. I am greedy but I won’t be greedy, and so on, They are all opposites and I won’t play that game because it is absurd, childish. it leads nowhere, logically. Because then we’ll fight each other endlessly and that becomes boring. So I won’t keep boring myself. So I won’t enter that. So my question is: what is the quality of a mind that has no opposite at all?
1:24:20	Q: What surrounds you will have no effect on you.
1:24:26	Q: It’s a mind without conflict.
1:24:33	K: Your mind. Yes, one’s mind is in a state of conflict.
1:24:36	Q: No, it is the mind without conflict.
1:24:39	K: Ah! Is that so? Q: Yes.
1:24:42	K: Your mind is without conflict? Or you are just stating, my description you are accepting. You see, you are not meeting this thing. Aren’t you concerned, if I may ask most politely, aren’t you concerned to find out such a mind, whether it is false, real, or imaginary, don’t you want to see what it’s like? Don’t you go to museums to see Picasso? If you like Picasso, or Rembrandt or some other? Don’t you go? Aren’t you curious even?
1:25:32	Q: Yes, Krishnaji, but I think we are so used to yielding or opposing. We are so much in the habit of either yielding or opposing we feel a bit lost.
1:25:44	K: But aren’t you, Jenkins, aren’t you interested to find out a mind that has... You understand? The beauty of it, the quality of it? If you are interested, then begin to find out whether you are struggling to become something. You understand? Psychologically, first. We don’t begin at the other end which is, ‘I have to live in this world, I must be somebody’, then that problem leads totally in a different direction. But if I say, look, the becoming is the opposite. You understand? Do you see this? I am violent but one day I will be non-violent, someday I will go to heaven, and so on, – that is the constant thought of accepting something in the future better than ‘what is’. I wonder if you see this. I give up!
1:27:08	Q: Yes, it’s like I do want to change things.
1:27:11	K: Ah! Change from what?
1:27:14	Q: No, I do want things to change. But what I know is that if I come from owning everything around me, I am not fighting the parts that are actually only my judgment. I mean, it’s my judgment or evaluation, that something doesn’t fit in what I want.
1:27:38	K: Is your judgment based on opposition? Is your judgment based on...
1:27:45	Q: Well, I don’t have... K: Wait a minute, madame. I mean, is your judgment based on personal reaction?
1:27:53	Q: On personal reaction? Yes, I think it is.
1:27:55	K: Is your judgment based on experience?
1:28:00	Q: Yes. K: So what does that mean? Limited. Therefore it’s no judgment at all. Sorry! No. Would you please consider what I am saying for a minute. We will have to stop. Please inquire, if you will, a quality of a mind, if it exists, that has no opposite at all.
1:28:43	Q: But isn’t it just to accept actually ‘what is’? It doesn’t say that this is one thing, this is the opposite of it, it just says that a thing, that’s a thing. There’s just facts.
1:28:58	Q: Well, the word that comes up for me is ‘service’. The word, just the word that comes up for me constantly through this conversation is ‘service’.
1:29:07	K: Service? Q: Yes.
1:29:12	K: Serve who? God?
1:29:18	Q: Everybody.
1:29:20	K: Why do you want to serve? Because they are poor? Q: No.
1:29:24	K: Because they are helpless? Q: No.
1:29:27	K: Because you have something with which you serve?
1:29:30	Q: No, I just know that when I serve somebody, when I have the experience of totally serving somebody, there is no question of opposition or anything, it’s like I am completely just there to do whatever’s wanted.
1:29:53	K: The politician says, ‘I am serving the people’. Are they?
1:29:59	Q: To the best of their ability, I imagine they are. They just don’t know. (Inaudible)...system, we created it.
1:30:09	K: They serve their constituents who want them to fight.
1:30:15	Q: Some do.
1:30:16	K: I am just taking that as an example. No, I am afraid we are going off the point. To meet opposition without opposition. That’s a new thing which I must go into.
1:30:42	Q: Does it mean that I would have to be totally in your field, no matter what that field is? Does it mean that I would have to be totally in your field?
1:30:56	K: I have no field – which becomes the opposite. I have no field. You see, you are in your field and I am in my field. It’s the same thing.
1:31:26	Q: Do you feel you have a compassion for us now, sitting here? Knowing the answer while we don’t.
1:31:41	K: Yes, sir. I think we’d better stop, don’t you?
1:32:04	Q: No.
1:32:07	K: No? Q: No.
1:32:11	K: Is that an opposition?
1:32:16	Q: It’s a desire. K: Or people are... I am not meaning... some of us are hungry. I am not, but they are hungry and they can’t very well listen. Because this is really... especially the Indian philosophers and saints, as far as I understand them, have gone into this question. To them there is the opposite and they try to achieve a state of mind which is not opposite. Which becomes the opposite. I don’t know if you see this.
1:33:14	Q: We see that but that’s the point at which we feel we’re stuck I think, sir. I think we do see that but I think we feel we’re stuck at that point.
1:33:22	K: I know. I am not sure you’re stuck. I don’t think you are. If I may point out, you are not moving easily. You are not like a river that’s running. A river never says, ‘I am stuck’. They’ve got tremendous volume of water behind it.
1:34:04	Q: Krishnaji, when you are really in pain and you are forced to look at something and there is no way out, then something you can see, but until that happens I can’t even see anything.
1:34:15	K: Yes, sir. You see, this is – you have heard of Vedanta and all the rest of it – this is their problem. First they posit there are opposites, man/woman, dark and light and so on, and psychologically their opposites – good and bad, violence and non-violence – they posit that. Then they say you must go beyond it, which is to have no opposites. You know, all the rest of it. And that very concept, not to have opposites, is an opposite. I don’t know if I... Right? Now, not to have a concept of opposites. After all, violence has no opposite; it is violence. The opposite is also violence. That is, if I am violent and I am trying to become non-violent, the becoming that is a part of violence. I don’t know if you see this. I am violent, I will become non-violent. The becoming will take time. During that time I am sowing the seeds of violence, obviously. Right? You’re not... So, what... Sir, I’d better stop because this is requires a mind that really penetrates into things, not just verbally throws off reactions. Just to go into it. See the extraordinary beauty of it, to have a mind that has no opposite. That means never becoming something.