Krishnamurti - Is there energy which is not at all wasted?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR82DSS1.3 - Is there energy which is not at all wasted?
Brockwood Park, UK - 20 June 1982
Discussion with Staff and Students 1.3

0:01	This is J. Krishnamurti’s third discussion with teachers and students at Brockwood Park, 1982.
0:12	Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about? (Pause) No suggestions?
0:30	Questioner: Sir, could we talk about education?
0:39	K: Education.
0:44	Q: Yes.
0:53	K: All right. (Pause) Have you got enough energy to learn? Not what you learn but the capacity to learn. That requires a great deal of energy, doesn’t it? You have energy, physical energy when you play football or take a walk, or when you talk. Any kind of physical action requires a lot of energy. Right? You agree? And also there is the energy of knowledge.
2:03	(Sorry, hay fever.)
2:10	That is, to acquire a great deal of knowledge requires also energy, learning. And there is the energy of thought. Right? Energy of thought born of the energy of knowledge which comes from a lot of experience, and there is also physical energy. Right? Either one uses the physical energy correctly or you dissipate physical energy. To acquire knowledge to be a good physicist, good biologist, good carpenter, you need a great deal of knowledge. That means you have to expend a great deal of energy. And learning also implies exercising thought, which requires another kind of energy. Right? That is, physical, the knowledge acquired through experience, and the energy of thought. All these require a great deal of energy, to learn. Have you that energy? That means to have a good mind. Have you? You have physical energy – right? – when you play football, when you do all kinds of physical activities. Either those activities, physical activities, in which there might be friction, struggle – that’s a wastage of energy – but if you do something easily you create more energy, physically. You know all this. Then when you learn any subject that requires application, learning, and in the process of learning there is the exercise of energy, moving. Learning isn’t just static, it’s constantly moving. So that also requires a great deal of energy, which in the very learning, the act of very learning creates its own energy. Are you following all this? When you learn – what? – biology, if you are interested in it, the very interest in the subject has its own energy, but if you’re not interested in biology or in mathematics – especially in mathematics; generally people aren’t – then there is a friction in it. You have to learn it, it is a bore, you must get marks, struggle, study. Though you exercise energy there is a wastage in it. Right?
6:41	And in acquiring knowledge about any subject that also requires energy. Right? All such forms of energy are limited, aren’t they? Physical energy, the energy of knowledge, the energy of thought – they are limited. Right? Understand why it’s limited. You can’t walk a hundred miles in a day; you are limited. Right? You might force yourself, train yourself to run twenty miles a day but in that running there is a wastage of energy, of course. You take in and expend. Right. Now, knowledge also, if you learn something very easily there is no wastage of energy; it creates its own energy. Right? And if you exercise thought easily then there is minimum energy but also there is expenditure of energy. Right? Are you following all this? Because that’s what you’re doing here at Brockwood: you are learning to play football or walk rightly, learn various subjects and then exercise, use those subjects skilfully to earn a livelihood. But all those forms of energy are limited and therefore wherever there is limitation there is a wastage of energy. Agree to this? Wherever there is limitation there must be friction and therefore there must be wastage of energy. Right? Do you see this? Because knowledge itself is limited – right? – they are learning more and more and more. The ‘more and more’ is limited. When you use the word ‘more’ it means it’s already limited. You understand it? Right? Can we go on from there? So, any form of limited thought, knowledge, is always creating its own friction, its own… wasting its energy. This is really an important point to learn. Then one can ask, if you further go into it, is there energy which is not at all wasted? You understand? Right?
10:51	We are going to investigate into that. Now, that’s learning, isn’t it? That’s being educated. Not education is merely learning various subjects. Right? Right? Be clear on this. Wastage... learning various subjects is necessary – that’s part of our education. But we limit ourselves to that, most people do, and so our knowledge about any subjects is limited and thereby there is friction. Right? Anything that’s limited must create its own friction. A country that is limited as a nationalistic county, it must create its own limited energy and therefore wasting its energy. I wonder if you see the implication of all this, or must I explain it all? If I have a belief, a conviction, a conclusion, it’s limited and that very limitation creates its own conflict, which is a wastage of energy. If I believe in God, for example – which I personally don’t; it’s nothing to do with belief – if I believe in God, my belief is based on fear – right? – based on something in which I can take comfort, somebody who will look after me, the big father, such a belief, such a conclusion, such a concept is limited, obviously. Now, where there is limitation, as we said, there must be friction and wastage of energy. You might study a great deal about philosophy, various philosophies – the Indian, the Chinese, the European and all that – and come to certain conclusions, certain hypotheses, theories, but that very conclusion is limited, because somebody will come along and invent a new theory. So have you… do you see the truth of this? That wherever there is limitation in knowledge, in action, physical or otherwise, it is limited, must be limited, because it’s based on knowledge and knowledge is finite, and therefore wasting. Do we learn this fact? No, learn – you understand? – not from me, but learn it is so. Are you learning about it? Or say, ‘Yes, I accept it, because you say so or somebody else says so,’ which doesn’t mean you are learning, you are merely acquiring what other people have said. See the difference? You learn by your own observation, which is much more energising, giving you great energy, or you learn from what somebody else has said. It’s a second-hand; it’s a first-hand. You understand? Now which is that you’re doing? (Blows nose) Use any other words. Much better use your own words, not copy my words. You understand? Because then it’s much more yours. Is this clear? So there is academic learning, educated in that, and also this is educating yourself. This is much more important. Right? Educating yourself. Which is, you are learning by inquiry. You understand? You are inquiring. I am not inquiring. We are together inquiring. Which is, I may point out but you are moving. Right? Are you? Or are you merely going to repeat? If you are merely going to repeat then you make your brain more mechanical. Right? So are you learning by observing this to be a fact? That wherever there is a limited energy that energy is wasting itself. (Blows nose) Right? You’re clear on this? Do you want to investigate more into this? I say I am a Hindu. The moment I have used the word ‘Hindu’ I have already limited myself. The very word with all its tradition and implication is narrowing down my life. If I say I’m a Catholic, look, immediately the very word creates its own limitation. I wonder if you see all this. The word. Right? Are you learning as I am going along? Do you want... Investigate more for yourself, discuss with me. (Blows nose) If you learn this very – learning in the sense investigating and seeing the truth of it – then we can go much further. But if you don’t understand this you can’t go further, deeper. (Pause) Discuss with me, please. When you say, ‘This is my way of living,’ you have already restricted it. ‘It’s my style, my temperament, my experience, I have thought it out, I have come to a conclusion.’ That very idea, coming to a conclusion is limited. Because either you are pig-headed, therefore you stick to it, or you are inquiring therefore you never say, ‘This is so.’ You understand all this? So, what does that indicate? We are investigating together. So what does that indicate?
21:12	Q: Does it mean that one has to be open so that one…
21:20	K: No, don’t… All right, use your own words. Use your own words.
21:24	Q: I don’t stop at a point and say, ‘All right, I’m this or that,’ but I move, I go on.
21:33	K: Which means what? Go on, inquire. Come on, sirs. Aren’t you freeing the brain from its limitation? You understand? My brain after millennia has become mechanical, part of it – right? – mechanical – repeat, repeat, repeat. That repetition is either what my past generation told me, what my historical knowledge, what the tradition, and so on – it has made my brain, which is the brain of all human beings, mechanical, limited. Right? And that limitation is my experience, my knowledge, my learning, the things I have come to, conclusions I have come to, the beliefs I hold on to, the attachments I have. You see, the word ‘attachment’ – immediately attachment means limited. I wonder if you see all this. So if that is so, when there is the realisation or perception, or when you see that this is a fact, then we can begin to inquire together if there is energy which has no friction whatever. You understand? As long as there is an anchorage – right? – the brain can’t go far, deeply. The anchorage is my safety, my protection, my feeling that I am safe – which is limited. Right? Which is, still further, which means any form of isolation – any form of isolation – is wastage of energy and therefore creates friction between you and me. You are isolated, I am isolated – as a Christian, a Hindu, British, French – you follow? – or Catholic, Protestant. Or I am intellectually much better than you are – right? – which is comparison and so on. Any form of isolation is a wastage of energy, which must inevitably create conflict in relationship. Right? I may be married, and if I am isolated in the sense I have my ambition, I want to fulfil, I am British, you are French – you follow? – I have married a Frenchwoman, she has all her conditioning, all her tradition – the French being very clever, very superior, smart, very, very educated – École Normale – you know what that is? – and she feels far more alive than me. I am British. I am much more isolated because historically I have been an island, living in an island, and that has made me much be more insular. You are following all this? So there is a contradiction between her and me. She is limited and I am limited, therefore there is friction between us. Are you learning all this or are you repeating? If you learn this, when you get married or you are already married, then things begin to alter. You follow? Are we going along together? You are sure?
27:28	Q: Krishnaji, I think we need to go into the question of learning because learning in our society has become just acquiring knowledge or repeating a book.
27:38	K: This is... Now, wait a minute, you are saying learning implies knowledge.
27:42	Q: It has done.
27:44	K: All right, all right, keep to that word. Learning implies acquiring knowledge. Right? But we have said knowledge itself is limited. And therefore are you learning? Please, be careful in this. Are you learning to acquire knowledge or learning to observe the fact? You see the difference? I can learn... I learn from you what you have said about the limitation of energy, how it isolates, limited, all that. I have heard you say all this and I have recorded it – right? – it becomes a memory and then I repeat it. Right? That’s what you’re doing. When you learn mathematics that’s what you do. Right? Are we clear on this? That is one form of learning – acquiring knowledge so that you can use it properly, acquire a livelihood and so on. That is, learning and acquiring knowledge. Right? But we are talking about learning which means observation, which doesn’t require knowledge. You see it? This is rather difficult. I have said, the speaker has said that every form of knowledge is wastage of energy, because knowledge itself is limited. Every form of limitation creates, because it’s limited in itself, must create conflict. If am British, British, British, British, you are French, French, French, or Argentine, there must be conflict. Right? Have you learnt that or have you seen it? Do you see the difference? Do you see the difference? Do you see the actuality of it? Like a leaf; you see the leaf. Right? You feel the pain. You may register the pain, and I hope later on not to have pain and so on, but the fact is it’s painful. You understand the difference? Idea is knowledge. Right? Seeing the actuality of this limitation is not knowledge, it’s just so. There is the sun – right? – rising and setting. You can inquire into the nature of the sun, the gasses, the heat and so on, the constituency of all of the sun, but the observation of the sun is different from learning about it. You see it, or are you going to sleep? It’s Sunday morning, you can do it. Now which is it you are doing? Forming an idea of what I said about limitation and then living according to that idea, which becomes mechanical, therefore limited, therefore conflict. Whereas if you see it like the sun, like the leaf, it is so.
32:43	Q: But, sir, there’s limitation in what one can see about something, like the sun. We see just the…
32:56	K: Of course, of course.
32:57	Q: That knowledge about the gasses you spoke of, is that second-hand knowledge and therefore limited?
33:05	K: No, maybe… of course it must be second-hand knowledge.
33:07	Q: It has to be.
33:09	K: I can’t know.
33:13	Q: No.
33:16	K: So is this clear? Clear in the sense, not that you have understood the words, learnt and so registered in the brain as memory and as knowledge, therefore it’s limited by itself. You understand this? Or you just see fact that every form of limitation is a wastage of energy and therefore there must be conflict. Right? Physically you see this. Right? The wars, the Jew and the Arab, the Israelis and the PLO, the ideologies of the communist and the ideologies of the capitalist. You understand? So there is conflict between ideologies, (coughs) and all ideologies naturally are limited. Right? Not one is superior or one is better than the other – they are limited. You can choose which form of limitation you want, but the idea of choosing itself is limited. I wonder if you see all this.
35:30	Q: I am not sure the analogy or the bond between learning a subject as being limited and being limited as a particular believer or an ideologue of some kind is entirely clear.
35:47	K: It’s not clear.
35:51	Q: I am guessing that it isn’t.
35:58	K: Discuss it, sir.
36:02	Q: Because as a young person one spends a great deal of time acquiring knowledge.
36:12	K: Yes. But also shouldn’t he also learn the actuality of observation? Not with knowledge but just to observe.
36:35	Q: Have I understood you correctly, Krishnaji? If you were to take a subject, say history, now when you study history you can either study the dates and all the facts, which is acquiring knowledge, or you can look at it with a different perspective, in the sense that in studying history you are looking at the human mind: the conflicts, the problems human beings have created.
37:09	K: Yes. Now wait a minute. Is that a fact that you can study the mind through history, your own mind? Or that is an idea, that you should study. After all, history is the history of mankind – right? – and mankind is me. Can I study myself? Which is, learn to observe myself as I am and move from there. Or I observe, learn, accumulate knowledge, and with that knowledge look. See the difference? I wonder if you see this important thing.
38:19	Q: But in a way I have to have some knowledge before I can do that. Say I am looking at history, if I don’t know any history I can’t say that history is the history of mankind or the history of consciousness.
38:32	K: Are you saying I must know history before I can say I am the story of mankind? It’s obvious I am the story of mankind.
38:41	Q: I don’t know if it is.
38:46	K: Shall we go into that?
38:50	Q: Are you saying, sir, that if I study myself I don’t have to study any history?
38:57	K: Of course not, I don’t say that. Of course, I don’t mean that.
39:02	Q: No, but that is implied. Unless you...
39:05	K: No, we have implied… by the very question you ask, it’s clear.
39:11	Q: But Krishnaji if you take the recent Falkland situation – the Argentineans and the English – many of us, we’ve all read the newspapers, we know more or less the situation. You know that one side has a point of view, the other side has a point of view.
39:30	K: Oh good lord, yes.
39:31	Q: Each trying to defend it. Then I go out and I meet somebody at Brockwood and we have a quarrel. We each have our point of view. The same thing seems to be happening in both cases. We don’t seem to be able to meet…
39:47	K: But if you perceived, saw any point of view, yours or mine, is limited.
39:52	Q: Is there a need to have a point of view about something like that?
39:58	K: Haven’t you got... No. Haven’t you got...
40:02	Q: Yes, but the fact is that they are killing each other and that’s…
40:07	K: That’s also… of course.
40:08	Q: I mean that’s a basic thing and one can see that that’s wrong. I mean, there’s no need to argue about it.
40:15	K: I mean, I don’t know what you are arguing about, but they are arguing about it. So let’s leave Falkland and Argentina alone. I don’t want to… I mustn’t go into it. I may become persona non grata in England. (Laughter) I may not be allowed to enter. So let’s go into something else (laughs), which is what we are talking about. You see, I want to find out – we are investigating – I want to find out if there is an energy which is not wasted at all. Don’t you? After leading up to that, which is, there is a wastage of energy as long as there is isolation, which is limitation and therefore which leads to conflict. It is so. Historically it is so. I don’t have to read history to find that out or a newspaper to find that – it is so. As long as I have my ambitions, my greed and my wife has, we are isolated, therefore there is conflict between us. That is so. Right? Do you see this? Or you have created an idea and you see the idea. Right? Which is it you are doing? If you see the fact that it’s limited and all the rest of it, then from there we can move, we can go deeper. But if you are playing tricks with yourself – ‘I’ll see it because I want to go deeper’ – you won’t. You see it? Because deeper may interest you more than seeing it is… Right? So don’t play tricks with yourself. If you have understood this as a fact, seeing it is so, that doesn’t require great deal of knowledge, a great deal of intuition, a great deal of insight or anything. It is so. It is like that. That’s why there is friction between the staff and you, if there is a friction. That’s why there is this friction between various sects, nationalities, races – all that. Which means if you see it you are free of all that. Not just seeing and then playing, going back to all that. Once you see that is poison you are out of it. If I see – if I am an Arab or a Jew or whatever it is – if I see that very name, that very idea that I am an Arab is limited and therefore must create tremendous conflict in the world, if I see that I am no longer an Arab or a Hindu or whatever it is. Are you in that position? I don’t want go on, repeat, repeat. Right? Can we go on from there? You see, this is real self-education. The word ‘self’ is again limited. You follow? You are learning. You follow? So this is education of a totally different kind, which you won’t find in any book, from any preacher, any newspaper. On the contrary, they all emphasise the other. So let’s find out, let’s investigate if there is an energy which in itself doesn’t create conflict. You understand the question? Do you understand the question? Do you see the implications of that question? Verbally, intellectually, do you see the implication of what is involved in such a statement? Or you have to be told and then you see? I have come to the point in my investigation that limitation, isolation is the most wasteful and dangerous energy. I see that and therefore it is like seeing a rattler, a dangerous animal, and it’s finished, I won’t go near it. Then I am asking myself: is there an energy, limitless, it can’t be limited, energy that will… Is there such energy or only the energy of conflict, energy of thought, energy of isolation? You understand my question? Ask it, sir. I am asking you a question, I am inquiring. Inquire with me. You understand? I am asking a question which may be absurd, which may have no meaning at all. Because man has lived for millennia upon thousands of years in this isolated, limited energy, in this limited area, and therefore he has been perpetually at war with each other. And that is life. You say that’s the way life is – you must live perpetually at war with your neighbour, with your wife. Personally, I won’t accept such a statement. I say I want to live with my wife peacefully. I want live with another community completely peacefully. You see, ‘community’ means already limited. You understand all this? Commune, community, sect. So as I won’t accept it, because it seems to me abnormal, it may be a neurotic way of life that we have become accustomed to and therefore we accept it. Being neurotic we accept neuroticism.
49:54	Q: Krishnaji, but at the same time you are saying that, you are also thinking. At the same time you are saying this, you don’t want a neurotic life, you are limiting it.
50:23	K: Ah! No, I am not saying... People say you have to accept things as they are. You can’t change. I say that’s impossible. The people who say it cannot be changed, this is the way of life, I say they must be kind of neurotic minds. But as I don’t want to be neurotic, as I don’t want to live in a limited area of my mind, I am asking a question: is there energy, is there a way of looking at life so that one’s existence has no conflict? Come on, sir. I think that’s a natural, healthy, normal question. That’s all I’m saying.
51:19	Q: Sir, is it also because at the end of life there is death and we seem to see our life which is narrowing down the energy, human energy?
51:33	K: Are you saying I am an old man therefore I…
51:36	Q: No, not you, everyone, everyone, sir.
51:38	Q: Energy wears out.
51:40	Q: Energy in human beings seems to wear out. Like in the morning you have energy, at night less, and in life it seems that…
51:47	K: No, surely I am not saying all that. I have finished with all that.
52:00	Q: But I don’t think we have understood what that is.
52:04	K: No, no. No, please, madame, I have just said that any form of limited… all knowledge is limited, all experience is limited, thought and so on, leads to isolation, which must inevitably bring about conflict. That’s all we have said. And I want to live a life – if it is possible – a life without conflict. Which means energy that is manifested in me which has no conflict. You people don’t move.
52:49	Q: Krishnaji, knowledge is limited and therefore if you bring conflict…
52:59	K: Because they live on knowledge.
53:01	Q: But on the other hand, if I want to be something, I wanted to have that knowledge, it’s necessary for me to have a job or to have a craft…
53:16	K: No, sir. No, that’s… You see what you are reducing it to? I have a dog. I must know how – you follow? – I must have knowledge about him, give him the right food. I am not saying that’s wrong.
53:44	Q: I think you have to make a distinction between education and training.
53:47	K: Yes, education and training are the same thing.
53:49	Q: I mean, training is generally…
53:51	K: Yes, yes. I don’t want to be a trained monkey.
53:56	Q: Well, people have to be trained.
53:58	K: No, see the importance, what you are saying. I say, ‘I do not want to be a trained monkey,’ but you are being trained as a monkey. As long as you accept and live within the area of knowledge. And knowledge must… you must have knowledge, but we are inquiring: is there an activity, a way of living which is not limited? That’s a simple question. I must know how to drive a car – if I want to drive a car. If want to learn a language, I must have knowledge about that language. If I want to be a good engineer, I must have knowledge. A carpenter. If I want to feed the poor dog I must – all the rest of it. We are not denying knowledge. Knowledge has its place. But knowledge is limited. And if I function and remain in that field I must be perpetually in conflict. This is simple enough. So, I am asking myself, which is, I am investigating – you understand? – we went into it the other day, what it means to investigate: to trace out step-by-step, go slowly without any bias, without taking any… my view and your view – we are investigating. That is, we are investigating together if there is a way of living in which... Living means energy – right? – energy expressed in my relationship, in my activity, etc. In my life, is there a way of living in which there is no conflict? The causes of conflict I have seen, which is every form of limitation. Which is so vast, it’s a very complex thing how deeply we are limited. So, is there an energy? How do you begin to inquire into something which you don’t know? You understand? You understand what I am saying? You don’t know actually that there is such a state, actually whether the human life which has lived on conflict, if such a… In that inquiry, what is my motive? You understand? I must be clear. What is my motive in this inquiry? Because is my motive – I am asking you, sir, come on – is my motive to escape from conflict? Is my motive… What is your motive? Let’s find out. What is your motive for inquiry?
58:12	Q: To finish with conflict.
58:19	K: Why?
58:22	Q: Because if I escape from it... (inaudible)
58:30	K: No, you say you finish conflict. Why do you want to finish conflict? You see, you haven’t realised this. The very statement you want to finish the conflict is a limitation. I wonder if you see this. If you saw it you wouldn’t make that statement. You are learning about yourself – you understand? I am asking you: what is your motive which makes you inquire? Because if you are not clear, your motive is going to dictate the inquiry. Right? Is that clear? The motive, which is your desire to be free of pain, to be free of conflict – that’s all the motive. If that is the motive you have, the motion that’s sets you to inquire – you understand the difference? Please, I must go into this. If you have a desire that sets you in a different direction of your inquiry – but if you have no motive, inquiry opens up. You understand this? Suppose I have a motive: I have quarrelled with my wife and I am fed up with this, and I hear you say what you have said previously about limitation and I say, ‘My God, how marvellous it would be if I could get that so as to be free from this terrible burden of conflict.’ You see my motive? That motive will dictate my inquiry. You understand that? My motive being limited, my inquiry will be limited. I wonder if you see this. Do you see this? See it, not repeat it. So I must be very honest, very clear if I have a motive in my inquiry. Any kind of motive. Now, please, stop there and inquire: what is the state of the mind that is inquiring, if it has no motive? Don’t throw out words. Find out. We are investigating. What is this quality of my mind – mind – which has been working in limitation, and that mind, brain – we’ll use the word for the moment ‘mind’ – that mind says… has seen the truth, not the idea, the truth that any form of limitation in my action, in my way of life, in my thought, the very existence of me is limited, and therefore it has caused tremendous conflict and pain. Now I say, ‘My God!’ You come along and say, ‘Is there such a life without conflict?’ I jump at it because I want to escape from this. Therefore my motive is avoidance, running away. The very running away is going to create its own limitation. You get it? So my mind has no motive in my inquiring. Please, don’t accept; find out. It may be an illusion. It may be I am hypnotising myself.
1:03:40	Q: Most of our energy stems from a motive of some kind.
1:03:46	K: Yes, of course. So I have said, if my inquiry has a motive of any kind...
1:03:57	Q: But you were also implying there will be an energy to carry on this inquiry irrespective of motive.
1:04:08	K: Of course. The motive is restraint. The motive is the limitation. Come on, you people are missing something.
1:04:17	Q: If I have no motive, I will stop inquiring. If I have no motive I will not inquire and then I just look at... (inaudible)
1:04:27	K: Then don’t bother.
1:04:28	Q: But then you look at ‘what is’ and that’s the situation.
1:04:34	K: You are missing so much. You are missing so much – you don’t jump into this. What, sir?
1:04:38	Q: Well, I think that sometimes you need a motive. You need knowledge so sometimes you need a motive. But there is another state of the mind who is limited and refuses a motive.
1:05:00	K: Of course.
1:05:01	Q: And that’s the confusion now here.
1:05:02	K: So break it, sir, break it.
1:05:06	Q: So when you have a motive you learn a language. You can see that motive without a motive.
1:05:14	K: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I understand, but I am asking...
1:05:20	Q: You can see very clearly that you want to learn a language.
1:05:21	K: If I want to learn a language – as I go to France, I must learn French.
1:05:30	Q: Of course. And that’s a good, practical motive. No problem about that motive.
1:05:39	K: That’s no problem.
1:05:40	Q: Yes.
1:05:41	K: But here I am inquiring into something entirely different.
1:05:42	Q: Exactly.
1:05:44	K: Into an area about which I know nothing. You follow? I know nothing. So I can’t come to it with a motive.
1:05:58	Q: No.
1:06:00	K: That’s all my point. You understand what I am saying? What I am inquiring may or may not exist. I don’t know a thing about it. But if I come to it with my knowledge, I know it already – it is not possible. Because I have lived this way and you point out something totally perhaps new, and I say, ‘Sorry.’ I reject it immediately. That’s what you’re doing. Whereas I am saying, if I have understood deeply, seen the truth – not verbally, not intellectually or romantically – if I see the truth that limitation in any form of existence is – etc., etc., – then I begin to ask: have I a motive in my inquiry? Is that possible, to inquire without a motive?
1:07:11	Q: Krishnaji, sometimes one feels that any kind of motive is just a justification for living.
1:07:19	K: Madame, have you understood my question? Don’t bring up another question. Have you understood my question? Which is, inquiring into something you know nothing about and therefore you must come to it afresh. You must come to it without any motive. That’s all I’m asking, saying.
1:07:59	Q: Who then is the inquirer?
1:08:03	K: Inquirer is the very energy that says, ‘I must find out.’ Don’t make it more complicated: ‘who is the inquirer?’ I am saying the inquirer is the entity that has seen the truth of limitation. That energy is inquiring. Do you object to this? If I realise the self as the ‘me’ – my reputation, my position, my knowledge, my blah, blah – that itself is limited, and that energy which has been limited as the ‘me’, when that energy itself sees its own bondage, it is free of that energy, of that bondage. That’s it. I wish you would see all this.
1:09:17	Q: Sir, are you saying that when I realise all what I am – right? – that I am selfish or whatever I am – I also see that whatever action I take upon it, it’s going to be within the same circle?
1:09:34	K: That’s right. That’s all. That’s all. You’ve got it. That’s all. Stick to that for the moment. Now inquire from that, when you realise that whatever you do is limited, inquire then if there is a freedom from this. You understand? If there is, which means you don’t know anything about it. So your mind, is it free? If it is free, it is free of all conflict. You understand this? No you don’t. Right, sir, let’s begin again. Let’s begin with something entirely different. Do you realise actually – not theoretically, actually – do you realise the bondage of your... how it is bound, the brain? Your brain in the sense the machine that thinks. Do you realise that? You think, don’t you? Are you sure? Don’t shrug. I mean, you think. Now, what do you mean by thinking? When you say, ‘I think,’ what does that mean?
1:11:27	Q: It’s usually the idea I’ve got about something.
1:11:38	K: No, think – not about something. For God’s sake! Are you aware, the mechanism of thinking? Not about something – not about the war, about your exams or about your family, thinking about something. I am not asking what you think about. But do you know the machinery, the activity of thinking?
1:12:06	Q: I can see something and can have the sensation and then the idea of it. I can have the perception of something then I have the sensation and then...
1:12:19	K: All right, all right. Now – you think about something.
1:12:23	Q: Yes.
1:12:24	K: Now what is thinking about something? Say, for instance, you think about sunset – right? – ‘how lovely!’ But thinking about something is one thing. Right? I am not asking that. I am asking, if I may most respectfully, what is the machinery of thinking?
1:12:55	Q: Isn’t the ‘about’ just what determines the content of the thoughts?
1:13:03	K: Yes, yes.
1:13:05	Q: Okay.
1:13:07	K: Stop there. You have said something, lady. Go into it. Don’t stop there. Now are you learning, if I may ask, the art of inquiry? Are you learning the art of inquiry? Not what you are inquiring about. Right? The art of inquiry, moving, discovering. You have said ‘limitation’ – I have discovered that. Right? Move from there. Don’t say, ‘Yes, I have discovered,’ and go to sleep. So the inquiry gives you the strength of the mind, the muscle, the quality, the substance that is strong. You understand? Now I want to find out – don’t you? – what is all this about? Brockwood, what is happening here, what is happening in the world – right? – the killing, wars, people who want to settle everything in one way – right? – and the other group says, ‘This is the way to settle.’ You understand? So what is all this about? Why is all this happening? Don’t you want to know? Now I am asking you – inquire – what is happening? Why is this happening? Murdering each other. Right? I don’t know if you saw on the television Sidon – how do you call it? – after bombing, what it has become. Have you seen it?
1:15:45	Q: Yes.
1:15:47	K: Don’t you say, ‘What? Why are human beings doing this?’ Not in one place – you follow? – it’s happening in the Falkland Islands, it’s happening in various parts of the world. Why are human beings living this way? Don’t you inquire? Or are you only satisfied with your little mathematics, geography, history, and your quarrel with your wife, or your own little problem of saying, ‘I’m unhappy, I want...’ You follow? How do inquire into all this enormous conflict going on in the world? Inquire, sir. Let’s inquire, shall we? Do you want... Don’t you know why all this? Do you?
1:16:58	Q: Yes.
1:17:00	K: Have you inquired? Inquired, not: ‘Yes it is so, history, we know this, human beings have lived this way, history says so.’ You understand? That’s not inquiry. Acceptance is not inquiry. Inquiry means you are seeing why human beings who have lived on this earth for centuries and centuries, why they are behaving this way. Go on, inquire. If you don’t inquire and find out now, you will be like the rest of them next in ten years’ time or fifteen years – ready to kill, ready to murder, ready to be in perpetual conflict. Come on, sir, move.
1:18:22	Q: Sir, we said that the tool that we use for inquiry is knowledge and it is limited. So how can we proceed?
1:18:31	K: I have made it… All right, sir. Have you found out for yourself knowledge is limited?
1:18:38	Q: Yes.
1:18:39	K: Or you are repeating?
1:18:41	Q: No.
1:18:41	K: Then what will you do?
1:18:44	Q: I don’t know what to do.
1:18:46	K: You see? What do you mean you don’t know what to do? (Laughs)
1:18:50	Q: It means that any movement from that is still knowledge.
1:18:57	K: Sir, if you’ve found out knowledge is limited, isn’t there a greater energy? Or it is just an idea? You are missing everything. Now let’s begin again. (Laughs) I want to inquire seriously why human beings throughout the world act this way, meet aggression with aggression. Right? You have understood this? You are aggressive and I meet you with my aggression. Do you realise this? With my relationship with my wife, my relationship with a group of people, I am aggressive and they meet me aggressively. So this pattern is being repeated – which is obvious – which is war, which is history. Right? So I have found out one of the facts is that if you meet aggression with aggression, it’s a perpetual maintenance of conflict. Right? Have you learnt, have you inquired and seen this? Which means that you will never be aggressive. Which doesn’t mean you are a doormat for everybody. I wonder if you see this. For God’s sake, are we all... Please, won’t you move from there? So I have met so far aggression with aggression and I see very clearly in that way there will be perpetual conflict. Right? I see this. So how am I to live without aggression? Is that possible? You see, I am inquiring, you understand? Therefore what does it mean? Do I take the opposite point of view? I won’t be aggressive. Hit me, I won’t be aggressive. Kick me around, I won’t be aggressive, I’ll turn my other cheek. Which is, Christianity has preached that but they don’t practice it – that’s a different matter. So how shall I find – I am inquiring, I am helping you, educating each other to inquire into this question: how do I live without aggression in a world that is full of aggression?
1:22:30	Q: You have to understand what aggression is. You have to understand or see what aggression is.
1:22:40	K: No, I see this. I don’t have to – lots of reasons, lot of education – I see aggression. If you hit me and I hit you back, this is what we have been doing. Right? And it ends nowhere.
1:23:02	Q: But why is there a first hitter? There is a first hitter in every situation.
1:23:05	K: Yes, but I have strong... if the first hitter is not quite so strong as me, I hit him back. I have got the greater navy, greater army, greater blah, blah, and I’m going to shoot you out. This is how we have lived. So I say I won’t live that way. I see it leads nowhere. So I say: now how am I to live in a world like you who are full of aggression, how am I to meet you and live in a way that I’ll have no aggression, but I won’t be a doormat, I won’t be kicked around? You understand? Have you seen the question? Oh my God, are you tired? I want to find out a way of living which is not aggressive, nor its opposite. Right? Have you understood this? I don’t want to be aggressive and I don’t want its opposite to be. So I am discovering something. As long as I have opposites in my mind there will be conflict. Have you understood this? No, no, see, inquiring into it. As long as there is… as long as I think in dualistic terms, as long as I am caught in this dualistic process – do you understand? – there must be conflict and the continuation of conflict. United Nations – you follow? – the very word ‘nation’ and ‘united’ is impossible, but that’s a deception we practise. You understand? So, as long as I have a mind that is living in opposites – aggression, non-aggression, which is the opposite – as long as I am living that way, thinking, my mind is operating that way, it will be perpetually in conflict. So is there is a mind – you are following this? – is there a mind that has no opposites? There are opposites – night and day, man and woman, tall and short – right? – and so on and so on – there are opposites, but I am talking inwardly. You understand? In my inward thought, as long as I have opposites – you are the enemy, you are French, I am this and you are that and so on, which are the opposites – as long as I have such a mind there will be conflict. Right? Now, have you got such a mind? Inquire. Don’t say yes or no – inquire. If you have such mind that is always living in opposites and the mind says, ‘By Jove, that is going to lead to misery, not only for myself, for everybody else’ – right? – if you see that then you begin to inquire is it possible to have a mind that has no duality, no opposites? Though there are opposites like you are a woman, I am a man, you are tall, I am short, or you are bright, and so on, but deeply inside me, have you got a mind that has no duality at all? You understand the implication of it? Tremendous. As long as I have an ideal – you realise? – as long as I have an ideal it’s the opposite of what I am. Therefore I have no ideals at all. I don’t know if you see all this. As long as I think, ‘I am not this but I will be that,’ it is an opposite. ‘I am violent but I will one day be non-violent’ – that’s again – you follow? – as long as I am thinking in those terms there will be conflict. So my inquiry says, ‘Go on old boy, inquire, move.’ I have seen that. I have seen the fact. I see the truth of it. But I haven’t found the truth of a life which has no opposition, which has no black and white, good and bad. Be careful, you won’t understand this. Don’t repeat and say, ‘I believe in… I say there is no good.’ On the contrary, there is something beyond all this. So I must inquire into a mind that is not dualistic. I can only do that if my mind is free from the false idea that there is the opposite.
1:30:09	Q: Sir, this doesn’t seem possible with thought. If thought is present then it doesn’t seem possible.
1:30:21	K: So what will you do? Move, inquire, go, don’t remain there. So don’t say ever ‘possible’ or ‘not possible’. You’ve learnt that? It’s not possible for me to fly. I have no wings, I have never learnt about going in an aeroplane – you follow? – fly. I don’t know. But it is possible to learn. But I am not talking of such possibility. I am talking of a mind being free from conflict and conflict must exist as long as I am limited – my thinking, feeling, outlook on life – as long as I have these opposites in me. That’s a tremendous discovery – you understand? – in inquiry. When you see the truth of a mind not being in conflict, such a mind can logically explain all these things. Now, are you doing this? You are too young.
1:32:06	Q: Are we clear, sir, what is the nature of this mind, what is actual nature of the inquiring mind? Because otherwise everything becomes…
1:32:27	K: Quite right. Mrs Jayakar is asking what is the nature, the quality, the substance, the material of a mind that is inquiring? You understand? Which has no motive, not anchored to anything. What is the nature of that, of a mind that’s inquiring? There is no inquiring, there is only pure observation. That very observation moves. It’s not just static observation, it’s a movement. Have I answered your question?
1:33:50	Q: I could go further, but I don’t...
1:33:54	K: I know, it’s twenty past, no, twenty-five past one. We’d better stop, don’t you? This is really… Mrs Jayakar is asking a very, very serious question, which is: what is inquiry, first? I suffer. My son, my wife or my brother, my uncle is dead. I suffer. That suffering, either I remain with it without any single movement of thought and that very suffering unfolds the whole history of suffering, because I am holding it, I am not moving away from it, I am not running away from it, I don’t want to suppress it, comfort and all the rest of it, it’s like a precious jewel I am holding in my hand. I am observing it. Not ‘I am observing’ – there is observation of something extraordinary taking place. Now, if I hold it very quietly without any thought, that very holding, looking is an inquiry – not ‘inquiry’ – an observation which unfolds the story of suffering. That’s one kind of observation. Now, I don’t suffer but I see suffering – poverty, the appalling things of killing another human being – I see suffering and that’s also part of me. I am observing because... So I am also inquiring there. The mind is observing and again it tells me this has been the story of mankind for all... since he was born, since he was in existence on this earth. Now, then my inquiry is: is there an ending to suffering? So I am going to inquire into that. Not ‘I’ – I am inquiring. That is, the movement which has not… a background which has not a motive, which is not anchored from which it is inquiring. There is looking. Let’s change the word inquiry into observing. There is only observing. It is not static observation, it’s moving, living. Now what is the mind, Mrs Jayakar asks, that is so purely observing? Observing what? Before, it observed suffering – you understand? – it observed personal suffering and this terrible suffering of mankind. There was something to observe. Now it has gone beyond all that. Therefore there is an observation – what? – into what? – into nothing. There is nothing to observe, just observation, not into something. I wonder if you see all this. There is no time to go into it now because the implications are enormous, because then there is no future, there is no time, and observation is limitless. It’s half past one. If you will get up, I’ll get up.