Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR83DSS1.3 - Conflict is a wastage of energy
Brockwood Park, UK - 12 June 1983
Discussion with Staff and Students 1.3



0:18 Krishnamurti: Last time, last Sunday we met here, we talked about peace, whether there could be peace in the world, in our society, and peace with ourselves, and what prevents this having peace in the world. We talked about that. That is, we talked over together the whole question of peace. as we said it is a very complex problem, because there is so much strife in the world, so much conflict, not only in personal relationship but between groups of people – strife of one set of strong opinions against another, obstinacy of ideologies – and there seems to be perpetual conflict in the world and in the society in which we live. And only in peace, in quietness, in having great deal of security that one can really grow, flower, be a good human being. We talked about that together. And I think we ought to talk about, this morning, conflict: why human beings who have lived on this earth for perhaps over a million years, and more civilised within the last forty, fifty thousand years – why human beings have not been able to find a way of living in which there could be no conflict, struggle, strife. Are you interested to talk about this?
2:52 Questioner: Yes.
2:56 K: So we are together talking about it, investigating, you are not just listening to what one is saying, we are together, walking down the lane, talking about these things quietly. So you are not just merely listening to what is being said but also you are sharing it, partaking in the conversation, in the investigation. So it is not a one-sided affair, it’s not a lecture as is commonly understood. So why is it that human beings, who have evolved, who have done most extraordinary things technologically – marvellous computers, the battleships, whether you like it or not, and the aeroplanes and the rockets and so on – why have they not found a way of living that is peaceful, without conflict? So we’re going to together examine why it is not possible. Or that is the human condition. Humanity has lived in conflict for thousands of years and yet we accept that as the way of life. We are conditioned to that. And if we accept that we are conditioned to live, perpetually from the moment we are born till we die, there must be conflict in ourselves, in our relationship with each other, in the world, wars, and all the misery, brutality and suffering. Is it our natural condition? You might say, Yes, it is natural, because everything in nature struggles to survive. The big tree... the little tree cannot exist where the big tree is, it has to struggle. Everything is struggling to survive. And that’s our lot, that’s our fate, that’s our condition. If you accept that, that it is our condition to be perpetually in conflict, then you must have wars, you must, in your relationship, however personal, or relationship with a group and so on, in that also there must be conflict, struggle, strife. That means you will never have any kind of peace, any kind of tranquillity, never a moment of having no sense of striving. Right? Perhaps that is the way the vast majority of people live. There are all the politicians, the religious people, the gurus, all encouraging strife. That’s right, isn’t it? Right? We are together in this.
7:31 And if you say, ‘Perhaps there is a different way of living’, one must give one’s energy, vitality and a continuation of inquiry, not just one day or one hour give... to find out if it is possible to live without conflict, but it must be a... it’s a tremendously complex problem. And to understand that one has to be attentive, watchful, inquiring. So that’s what we are doing, I hope, now. As I said, if you accept strife, conflict, struggle, pain, sorrow and all the misery of wars and so on, the nastiness of it all, then there is no problem; you accept it. But if you don’t accept it, and find that’s rather a stupid way of living, then you have to put your energy into your inquiry. So I hope... one hopes now that we will do this this morning.
9:08 The question is: why? Why do we live in strife? Is it necessary? Is that the way to evolve, to grow, to bring about comprehension – strife? You understand the question? How will you inquire into it? Inquire why society, with all its inequalities and its brutalities and all the rest of it, that society is created by us. Right? Human beings have created this society. And that society says you must strive, you must live in conflict. So, that society is being... having been created by human beings, human beings then are responsible for all the things that are happening. So, is it possible for a human being – that’s you – to end this conflict in oneself? Not whether this conflict will end outwardly in the world, because the world is, psychologically, what we have created. So it must begin with us, not with society. Right? How to bring about peace in society, or how to find out whether society can ever have, or bring about in all human beings a state of non-conflict. As society is created by human beings – past generations and the present generation – it behoves us then to observe ourselves, each one of us, to find out whether we can live without conflict. Right?
11:58 What is conflict? How does conflict arise in us, psychologically? Conflict there is, biologically, physically, because when one is not in good health there’s conflict, there’s struggle to be well, and so on, but we’re talking about, discussing together, whether psychologically, inwardly, what is conflict, what’s the nature of conflict, how does it arise? Right? If you have very strong opinions and another has very strong opinions, contradictory, then there is strife between you and the other who has strong opinions. Right? So we are asking whether it is possible to live without opinions. We have talked about this several times before. We say we have opinions because we see something to be a fact, and that our opinion is based on fact. Right? I hope you are following all this. Right? Are we following each other? Not me, but you inquiring. Right? You have a strong opinion, another very strong opinion, contrary to yours – he thinks it’s right, his judgement is right, his conclusion is right, his ideals, his beliefs are based on facts, and you also say exactly the same thing, opposite to what he is saying. So why does the brain hold on to these opinions, conclusions? You understand the question? Why? Is it because without opinions and judgements and conclusions one is nowhere? Right? Are you all going to sleep, or am I talking to myself? One feels secure in being attached to opinions, judgements. Facts need not have opinions; it’s a fact. Sun rises, sun sets, that’s a fact. Why do you have an opinion about it? There is darkness and light; you are tall, another is short; you are intelligent, another is not. So, facts. Why do we have opinions about facts? You understand? So what are facts? Fact is that which is actually taking place. Right? There is a fact: that’s a microphone. I can’t have an opinion about it. What’s the point of having an opinion about it? It is so. So can we look at our own opinions, conclusions and so on, and see why we have them? Opinion means judgement, conclusion, imagination, suggestions. We hold on to all this. Is it because it’s much easier? The politicians have opinions, one group against another group. So the world is full of this. And there are very few who say: why do we have opinions at all, but just live with facts?
17:44 Are we meeting each other? So we say: what are facts? We said facts are that which is actually taking place. You see, this is – I don’t know if you are interested in all this – it’s a very complex question, this, because we always look at ourselves or at another with past memories interfering with our perception. Right? I see you and I have all kinds of memories about you, pleasant or unpleasant, and those become the opinions, and I judge you according to my opinion, according to my background. I don’t look at you freely; all the past memories interfere. It’s a safe way of living – at least we think it is a safe way of living. When we say, I know you. I know what you are. But you are changing, so the world is changing, but I hold on to my conclusions, to my ideals, and that’s one of the factors of conflict. You can see the conflict between the so-called democratic world with its ideals, and the totalitarian world with their ideals – ideals based on Marx, Lenin and all that. So, conflict exists where there are ideologies. Right? Conflict must exist where there are beliefs – you believe in one thing and I believe another.
20:17 So, why do we have beliefs at all? Some believe in God, others don’t believe in God. There is the whole world, Buddhist world, that doesn’t believe in God. To them God doesn’t exist. They may make the Buddha into a god, but the idea of a god doesn’t exist as it exists in the Christian world. So there is conflict between the believer and the non-believer. Right?
21:05 So conflict exists where there is division – as nationalities, as ideals, as beliefs, as opinions, conclusions. There must be conflict. So, is there division in oneself, a fragmentation in oneself? You understand my question? Is there in each one of us a contradiction? Where there is contradiction, obviously, there is division. You understand? Are we aware of this contradiction in us, this limitation? You understand? Are we meeting each other? Am I aware that my thinking is limited? When I am concerned about myself it is very, very limited, and therefore that which is limited must bring about a contradiction in itself. And there are contradictory desires – I want one thing and later on I don’t want it. I want to live peacefully but I do everything not to live peacefully. So there is in oneself a division. Now, why is there this division? You are asking this? Are we asking each other this? Why is there in each one of us this contradiction, this division, this fragmentation, this limitation? Who has brought it about? How has it come into being? I am this, but I would like to be that. That’s a contradiction. I am dull, but by study, by exertion and so on, one day I will be bright. So there is in us a duality. In us there are opposites. Why do these opposites exist? I am this; that’s a fact. I am greedy, violent, jealous and so on. I am that. But I’ve created the opposite: I must not be jealous, I must not be greedy, I must not be violent. You understand? So the opposite is not actual, is not a fact. What is is a fact. I wonder if I am making this clear. I am violent and people have talked about non-violence. Non-violence is not a fact. What is a fact, what is the fact, is violence. Why do we create the opposite? You understand my question? Is it because we hope the opposite will help us to be free from what is? I am violent, I project an idea of non-violence, and hope that pursuit of non-violence will help me to be free of violence. I have already... in the pursuit of non-violence I am still being violent. I wonder if I... Right? No?
27:01 I am jealous and I say I must not be jealous, and it will take me some time to be not jealous, but in the meantime I am still jealous. Right? So in the pursuit of non-violence you are being violent. Of course. So why not deal with the fact and not with the non-fact? You understand? You understand what I am saying? The fact is I am jealous. When I say, ‘I must not be jealous’, that’s not a fact. The fact is I am jealous. So, if I keep only to the fact, then there is no conflict. Right? I will explain. I am jealous. Jealousy is me. Right? Jealousy is not different from me. Anger is not different from me. I am anger, I am jealous, I am brutal, I am violent, and so on. Violence, brutality, anger, jealousy is me. But when I say, ‘I must not be that’, that is not me, it’s a mere projection of what I would like to be, which is non-fact. I wonder if you understand this. Have you understood this? Can we go on from there? Would you like to discuss this point? This is an important point. It is an important thing that we understand this, basically, fundamentally.
29:21 I am suffering, not only physically – that you can deal with – but I am suffering psychologically because my son, my brother, my husband, my wife has died, or run away, or does something which I don’t like. I suffer. That suffering is me. Right? That suffering is not separate from me. When it is separate from me then I am in conflict, then I struggle to overcome that suffering. But the fact is I am suffering. Right? Suffering is me. So I remain with that fact. Then what takes place? You understand my question? You understand my question? This is… You understand? I have created a division, thought has created a division between the fact of violence and non-violence. When you have non-violence, which is not a fact, but violence is a fact, then there is a contradiction, there is an opposite. The opposite is created, as we said, perhaps for convenience, escape from the fact, or hope the non-fact will help us to be free of the fact. And it doesn’t help. If one stayed with the fact? instead of wasting one’s energy trying to become non-fact – isn’t it? It’s a wastage of energy. I wonder if you understand all this. It’s a wastage of energy when I try to be something I am not. I am not non-violent, I am violent. But when I pursue non-violence it’s a wastage of energy. So conflict is a wastage of energy when I pursue something which is non-fact. Is this clear? At least intellectually, verbally. We can later on come to see why we accept so easily intellectually or verbally something, and why we don’t see something immediately, the fact, the truth of the matter.
33:04 You know – I don’t want to make it complicated – let’s look at it. You observe the tree. You are examining it, you look at it, the beauty of it, the depth of it, the shadows, the leaves, the extraordinary colour of it, the height of it – you see the whole thing. There is a distance between you and the tree. To look at it you must have a certain distance. And so do you have a distance between what you are and what you think you are? You see the difference? Oh, Lord! Do you see the difference between idea and the fact of the idea? Look, I say to myself, ‘I am angry’. Is that an idea, or I realise it is so? You see the difference? Now, I say, I am asking you, ‘Are you violent?’ When you say yes, is that an idea? Is it that you are accepting the words, the idea, or you see that you actually are violent? You understand the difference? The idea and the fact. Right? So what do you do? Do you see the fact without the idea, or you have the idea and then look? I wonder… Do you look at that tree – because you have seen so many trees, you have a picture of a tree, the memory of trees, and when you look at that tree all those memories come forward. Right? So can you look at that tree without memories? Just look at it. Right? So I am asking – we’re asking each other – why do we waste energy, which brings about conflict between the fact and non-fact? The pursuit of non-fact is wastage of energy. I am violent or greedy, and if I pursue the idea of non-greed, non-violence, then I must be in conflict, trying to control myself, trying to suppress my anger. You follow? That’s a conflict going on. Whereas if I remain with the fact that I am violent, I am not wasting the energy. Right? I wonder if you understand it.
37:19 Q: Yes.
37:20 K: Of course. That’s the difficulty.
37:26 Q: Sir, may I ask you something there? What do you exactly mean by remaining with the fact?
37:31 K: I’ll show you, but first see. Have you understood the first thing, which is, the fact and the non-fact? Right? The non-fact is non-violence. The fact is violence. In the pursuit of non-violence we have created conflict. Right? Is that clear? Which is wastage of energy. So conflict is a wastage of energy. Right? Clear? We will come to that, you’ll see – wait a minute. So to remain with the fact, what does that mean? You tell me, what does it mean? To not move away from the fact I am angry. Which means I never say, ‘I must not be angry’. I must not try to suppress it, transcend it, go beyond it. To remain with that. Any attempt to move away from that is a wastage of energy, and conflict. Have you got that? Yes? I am short, or you are tall. All right – that’s a fact. But if I want to become tall, then it becomes a problem, then it becomes a conflict, jealousy and all this arises. But I say, ‘Yes, I am short’. ‘I am dull’. Then what happens? That’s the point. You understand? When you are not pursuing the opposite, which is a wastage of energy, which is a non-fact, then you have the energy to look at the fact. Right? The fact of jealousy is not different from you; you are that. So you have totally… altogether free of the opposite. I wonder if you see this. Do you see this?
40:25 Q: No, I am always pursuing the non-fact, which is, according to you, a waste of energy, therefore I have no energy to see.
40:32 K: No. If you are wasting energy on non-fact, you realise you are wasting it, you stop being... wasting it.
40:43 Q: No, I don’t see that.
40:47 K: If you are shouting at me, I say, ‘Don’t shout at me, it’s a wastage of energy on your part’. You stop shouting.
41:00 Q: Well, if I am furious...
41:02 K: Yes, of course – I am a little serious. Right? ‘Don’t talk... please don’t talk so loudly, it’s a wastage of energy because...’ You follow? Then quieten down. In the same way, it’s a waste of energy when you pursue something which is not actual. When you see that, you don’t waste your energy. So you have energy. Then with that energy, observe. That is, you are not different from jealousy or violence, you are that. Right? That’s a fact. Therefore you are not wasting any energy in conflict. It’s only when you want the fact to be different, then conflict begins. Right? Is that clear?
42:16 Q: It is, verbally.

K: Ah! That’s the difficulty. For most of us, verbally or logically, it’s very clear. But why do you say that – verbally?
42:34 Q: Because I don’t feel…

K: No, find out, don’t say... Why do you say, intellectually, verbally I understand – why?
42:46 Q: I can see…

K: No. Doesn’t it indicate that you are not listening completely, wholly – you are not interested? I want to find out whether conflict can end – you understand? – because I see how important it is. The whole world is in conflict in their relations and so on. I want to find out if it is possible to live without a shadow of conflict. In the pursuit of that, in investigating that, I come to the point, I see conflict exists when there is the pursuit of non-fact. Right? So, the fact is ‘me’; ‘me’ is not different from the fact. Right? That is so. You are not different from your nose, from your eyes, from your body, from your tendencies, your anxieties, etc., etc. – you are that. Do you accept this, do you see the fact of that? Or is that still an idea? You understand? Do you actually see that you are anxiety – not anxiety is different from you. Right? You know what loneliness is? Of course, all of us know it. You are lonely; loneliness is not different from you. Right? Is that a fact to you, or is it just an idea which you accept?
45:15 Q: It is an idea. If I saw it as a fact, I would treat it as part of me, like I would treat my body.
45:21 K: Yes, so – what, fact?

Q: Yes.
45:25 K: That you are jealousy?

Q: Yes.
45:27 K: Now – so you are not wasting your energy in pursuing non-fact, are you?
45:41 Q: I am afraid I am. I think I am.
45:46 K: What?

Q: Wasting…
45:48 K: …your energy – why?
45:50 Q: I don’t see it as a fact, that jealousy, loneliness is...

K: Is you. Now I would like to… I see this is rather difficult. Do you see that you are not different from your reactions. You are not different or separate from what you analyse. I will expand it a little more. You are not different from what you observe in yourself.
46:48 Q: Usually, Krishnaji, if one is angry, you’ve made me angry. You’ve made me angry, it’s not that... although I am angry now, but somebody else has made me angry, or something has made me angry.

K: Of course.
47:05 Q: And putting the emphasis on something else.
47:08 K: That’s a reaction. Are you aware that your reaction is you? You are not different from your reactions.
47:20 Q: But usually we do put emphasis on the thing that’s causing it.
47:23 K: I know. So move away from that. Don’t keep on repeating the same thing – then you are caught. But if you say, ‘Look…’ This is the fact, this is the truth, that you are your reactions, you are your memories.
47:55 Q: But that seems to be the whole difficulty, because we cannot stay with the fact. I mean, what is there preventing us from staying with the fact?
48:04 K: Because we are so conditioned to pursue non-fact. We are so conditioned to pursue ideals.
48:19 Q: I see I am jealous, but I disapprove.
48:28 K: No, I don’t disapprove. Who is the entity who disapproves? It is still me. Right? I wonder if you see the…
48:45 Q: Krishnaji, you say this but I feel there’s a very strong conditioning that there is such a thing as ‘me’ that is watching my emotions.
48:54 K: I know that, sir, I know – that’s our difficulty. So, you are so programmed, if I may say so, that you won’t accept a new program. Look, sir, this is a simple fact. I don’t know what you are objecting to. I am jealous. I neither disapprove nor approve, it’s a fact. The moment I disapprove and begin condemning it, conflict begins. The person who disapproves is jealousy too. Right? I wonder if you see this. So can we go a little further? When you look at the tree, the tree is different from you, obviously – I hope it’s so. Right? But when you look at yourself, is the observer different from what you see in yourself? You understand my question? I am jealous. Keep to that one thing: I am jealous. Is that jealousy something away from me, separate from me, as the tree is? If I observe it as something separate from me, then I condemn it, then I disapprove, then I fight with it, then I try to control it. But jealousy is me; the observer is the observed.
51:14 Q: OK, I observe that that thing out there is a tree. You are saying the tree is me?
51:20 K: I said the tree is different from you, the observer. But if you identify yourself with the tree, that you are the tree...

Q: You mean, the oak, maple?
51:32 K: What? No, old boy. You look at that tree. Right? That tree’s not you. Right? I hope not. That would be rather fanciful, imaginative and rather cuckoo. So – now, you observe your jealousy – right? Is the observer different from the thing you observe as jealousy?
52:01 Q: Well, obviously not if that feeling of jealousy arose from me.
52:05 K: Yes, that’s a fact, isn’t it?

Q: Yes.
52:07 K: So the observer who observes jealousy is jealousy. There is no difference between the observer and the feeling that he is jealous. So I am saying, the observer is the observed. No?
52:35 Q: But he feels there is a difference, Krishnaji. He feels that he’s removed from...
52:44 K: No, sir, this requires a little investigating. Go into it with me, please. You agree, sir, that you – I hope you see, actually – that you are jealousy? Right? Jealousy is not different from you. And when you condemn it then you are separating yourself from the fact. You see that? Then in this separation conflict arises. All right, let’s put the whole thing another way. All human beings suffer. Right? Physically as well as psychologically. Whether they are Russians, whether they are totalitarians, whether they are Japanese, whether they are Americans, whether they are – all human beings suffer. Right? And you are a human being, you suffer, in some different ways. So that suffering is you. Right? Then if you could remain with that and not go away from it then what takes place? Unless you do this actually, my telling you about it has no meaning. Remembering all the time that you are trying to find out whether one can live without a single conflict.
54:45 Q: But when you suffer… (In Italian)
54:53 K: Sì. He is saying, automatically this happens. That’s our conditioning. So inquire into conditioning, find out why you are so conditioned – break from it. Look, I’ve been programmed – if I live in a Catholic country, my parents were Catholic, I’ve been programmed to be a Catholic. I will repeat all the words, all the circus that goes on, I will go on with it. And you are conditioned as a Buddhist, and you go on with your conditioning. So conditioning is one of the factors of conflict. I want you to become a Catholic, because your belief is all idiotic. My belief is holy. And so there’s conflict. So, can we live – it’s a much more complex problem – can we live without being programmed? Find out. Neither being a Hindu, Buddhist, American, British – all this is the result of our being programmed for the last 2,000 years as a Christian, and 3,000 more as a Hindu. It’s all so silly!
56:44 Q: Well, not all would agree with you.
56:48 K: Of course not.
56:49 Q: Some Hindus, Christians would say, ‘This is the way’.
56:52 K: Of course, that’s what... And the Hindus… Because you have been programmed as a Hindu, I’ve been programmed as a Catholic. That’s a very profitable business for the priests. So, can you – go into this question – can you live without being programmed? Programmed being, being told what to think, what to do.
57:38 Stephen Smith: Sir, as we obviously are programmed, who is the entity who breaks the program?
57:52 K: I will tell you. There is no entity who breaks the program. That is, do you see the fact that you are programmed? Do you see the fact? The fact, that I have been programmed as a Catholic or as a Hindu or as a Buddhist or as an American or British, British, British – we’ve been programmed. I am not against the British. The French say the same, exactly the same thing. The Indians, the Hindus, when we go there and I say you’re all being programmed, they say, ‘Sir, our program is right, not yours’. Mr Steve Smith asked a question: who is it that breaks the program? Who is the entity that breaks down this whole structure of propaganda? I said there is no entity, it is the fact that you are programmed. You are the result of being programmed. Right? No?
59:38 Q: Well, isn’t it OK to be that? Isn’t it OK? It seems to me the problem – you put your finger on it at the very beginning – is our refusal of what we are.

K: Yes.
59:50 Q: Isn’t it a fact that it’s OK to have opinions, it’s OK to be programmed.
59:55 K: I can’t quite hear, sorry.
59:57 Ray McCoy: Isn’t it all right to be programmed and to have opinions?
1:00:02 K: Is it all right?

Q: To have opinions.
1:00:08 Q: We all can refuse what we are – I talk too much, I have too many opinions – and we’re refusing what we are. Can we not say, ‘Well, OK, I have opinions, and it’s OK to have opinions’, and live a way... not to refuse what we are, but to live what we are.
1:00:30 K: Yes, sir, that’s what I am saying. What are you?
1:00:34 Q: Well, if I may go back. I have opinions on whatever it is, on conflict, on war, and so on.
1:00:41 K: Yes, sir. What are you?

Q: It seems to me, in some peculiar way which I don’t understand, in order to get clear of avoidance...
1:00:51 K: Sir, what are you?
1:00:53 Q: In what sense?

K: You are your opinions?
1:00:56 Q: Yes.
1:00:57 K: Yes. You are your jealousy?

Q: Yes.
1:01:00 K: Yes. You are what you have been programmed.
1:01:04 Q: Yes.

K: Yes. That’s a fact.
1:01:07 Q: Yes.

K: Now wait a minute. Is that an idea that you are programmed, or you actually are aware of the whole nature and the structure of being programmed?
1:01:25 Q: Yes.
1:01:27 K: So there is no division between you and the program.
1:01:32 Q: There’s only one thing, that’s me.
1:01:34 K: Wait, sir. There is no division between you and the program.
1:01:41 Q: Correct.
1:01:42 K: You are the programmed.

Q: Yes.
1:01:45 K: Right?

Q: Yes.
1:01:46 K: Then what takes place?
1:01:51 Q: There is somewhere in me a view that it’s wrong to be programmed.
1:02:00 K: There is somewhere in you that says it is wrong to be programmed. What is it that says that it’s wrong to be programmed?
1:02:11 Q: The program.
1:02:14 K: Yes.
1:02:16 Q: The ego.

K: Another program. That’s all my point. One thought says, ‘I am being programmed’, another thought says, ‘There’s something in me that’s not programmed’. It is still thought operating. So let’s stick to this. We are programmed; that’s a fact. That’s irrefutable fact. Like a computer, we are programmed. Our memory is a program. Right? I am a Catholic or a Hindu or an American, whatever it is. And somebody asked: who is it that breaks down this program? There is nobody if you are programmed completely. Right? I wonder if you understand. There is nobody outside of me who can break it down. Right? So, there is no attempt to break it down. There is only the fact, that I observe the whole complications of being programmed. That’s a fact. I observe the fact. That is, the observer is the observed, and so he remains with the fact.
1:03:54 Q: You mean that if you just remain with that fact without contradiction, without conflict, it just dissolves?
1:04:04 K: No, wait. Find out! Don’t say it dissolves, it does something – find out, discover what happens.
1:04:16 Q: It seems to be you wake up. You become tremendously aware.
1:04:21 K: Aware. That’s one of the factors. Go into it.
1:04:27 Q: Sir, but most people in the world are not aware that they are programmed.
1:04:32 K: Most people won’t want to even listen to what we are talking about. I doubt if you are listening either. So, I am not being impolite, but I am just asking. We don’t listen. We’ve got such strong opinions, strong conclusions. Conclusions, opinions are part of our program. So, if I am the program – program is me, right? – then what happens? Do answer – you asked me what happens.
1:05:31 Q: No conflict.
1:05:35 K: Is that so? Is that a fact to you, that you have no conflict? Only see the fact that I am programmed. And what takes place then? Before, I’ve said, I am not programmed, only part of me. Before, you’ve said, I will control my program, I will change it. I will take another program, the better one. So, in that process there has always been a conflict, which is a wastage of energy. Now, when you are not doing all that, when you realise that that you are completely the result of being programmed for centuries, all the energy which has been wasted, you have got that energy now. Have you? All that energy which has gone into contradiction, suppressions and all that, now you have such tremendous energy to look at this program. So you ask whether you can live without being programmed at all. That means whether you can live in complete freedom, from all impressions, from all pressures, from all the activities of newspapers, politicians, priests, gurus, totally free of all that. That’s real freedom. The word ‘freedom’ also means love. And when you talk about being programmed and wanting to be free from it, the desire to be free from being programmed is part of your program. The desire to be free. You understand this? Is this clear, I don’t know? So, if it is clear, are you then free from conflict?
1:08:34 Q: No, well...

K: Oh, boy! Because you see that’s… our difficulty is we don’t actually listen, we don’t actually see the fact that in ourselves, this terrible sense of being programmed. We don’t actually see it, as you see a blister, as you would feel a pain. You follow? You don’t feel it so acutely. It remains an idea, something outside. Right?
1:09:35 Q: Well, say I did see the fact that conflict is me; it comes to an end – so what?
1:09:41 K: Ah! Conflict is me. Right? Will you do anything about it? Condemn it?
1:09:57 Q: Well, no. If it’s a part of me, I can’t. If it’s part of me, no, I have to take care of it.
1:10:02 K: You can’t. It’s not if it is part of you – it is you.
1:10:09 Q: OK, it is me.

K: Not OK, it is so. Right? So what takes place?
1:10:22 Q: You take care of it.
1:10:24 K: How do you take care of it? Who is the caretaker?
1:10:32 K: So, what do you do? You are that. That is not different from you. Unless you get that in your blood, that there is the division between what you think you are and what is actually – you follow?
1:10:57 Q: Well, what is in my blood right now is the past. You know, what’s…

K: Yes, sir.
1:11:02 Q: Are you suggesting a...

K: No, please. When I say in your blood, in the sense it is really a fact to you. Unless that’s so, then you have all the complicated problems. One says... we say the fact is the only thing that matters, not the opposite. The opposite creates conflict. So, the fact is me. So when I observe, the observer is the observed. Right? When I analyse myself, the analyser is the analysed. Do you see that? I analyse why I am jealous. I can find the cause of jealousy, which means I am treating jealousy as something different from me. Right? Clear? When I begin to analyse it, it is something...

Q: …something different.
1:12:27 K: Yes. But jealousy is me. So the analyser is the analysed. The analyser who examines jealousy is jealousy. No?
1:12:47 Q: But so what? What difference will that make? There are four billion of us here who are on the course of self-destruction. Maybe twenty years from now we won’t be here. What difference will it make if we leave this room as a free being?
1:13:01 K: That’s right. So you say what’s the point? What’s the point of all this? What is the point of one or two living without conflict? What’s the point of it all, when ninety-nine point so-and-so doesn’t care for all this? What effect has it? So you are doing all this for an effect?
1:13:31 Q: Yes, I would say that.
1:13:33 K: You are trying to understand jealousy and how to live without conflict so as to affect others?
1:13:46 Q: Well, yes. To bring about a change in this world.
1:13:49 K: Ah, wait a minute. What do you mean, change? Wait, sir. You have heard this conversation between you and me – have you changed?
1:14:04 Q: Superficially, but not deeply.

K: Why not?
1:14:12 Q: Because I have my opinions about what you are saying.
1:14:14 K: Yes. So, your opinions are the result of your being programmed.
1:14:20 Q: Right.
1:14:22 K: So could you investigate why you hold on to your programs? Not stick to your programs – find out why you have them. And don’t say, ‘If I do, and if I am free from programs, what effect has that on millions and millions of people?’ So, in fact then you are not trying to find out how to live for yourself without conflict. You want effect. Perhaps it would have a tremendous effect if there are a few of us that can live without conflict. It may have a tremendous effect. But I am not concerned whether it affects Mrs Thatcher and all the Conservatives or the Labour or the Alliance.
1:15:26 Q: OK, are you concerned with bringing about a change in this world?
1:15:33 K: Yes.
1:15:34 Q: But you’ve done nothing.

K: I say – how do you know?
1:15:37 Q: Well, because of the world. Each year there are more and more missiles.
1:15:41 K: Just a minute. Lenin was one man who brought about revolution in Russia.
1:15:54 Q: Yes.
1:15:56 K: He didn’t bring it – circumstances were there and he helped to bring about revolution. Right? If you were actually deeply concerned with this, you may do extraordinary things. Right? That’s all. But change first. You see, that’s the difficulty. We want to show to the world that by our doing something it’s going to affect the world. Do it first and then see what happens. Now you have listened for an hour, more than an hour, and what have you understood of it, of all this conversation? Will you, when you leave this place or when you remain here, be free of being programmed? Never calling yourself Russian, American, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic and all the rest of it – that’s only one very small thing to do. Will you do that? If you don’t do the small thing, how will you do other things which are much more complex? Sir, you see, one of our difficulties is our education, our way of living and all that is so superficial that we never dig deeply into ourselves. Don’t say, ‘Who is to dig?’ but to say, ‘This is important, I must investigate this’, and keep on questioning, doubting, asking, so that you yourself see for yourself, without being told, this: that you are the result of vast programming. You understand, sir? The computer is being programmed. Programming is the cultivation of memory. Right? The computer has got vast memory; it has been programmed, as we are. Right? I wonder... you understand? Then what’s the difference between that and us?
1:19:42 Q: None.
1:19:44 K: You actually say that? I wonder if you understand the question. If the computers can think, correct itself, correct its own memories – that’s what’s taking place – one generation of computers, the second generation is better and so on, so on – it’s correcting itself and all that, like us – then what’s the difference between that and us? If the computer can do all the things, most of the things that we do – of course it can’t look at the stars of an evening and say, ‘How beautiful it is’. Right? It can’t. But apart from those things, feelings – feeling the beauty, feeling tenderness, quiet and all that – apart from that, the computer can do almost everything that we are doing. Probably better. Then what happens to our brain? You understand my question? Yes, sir, you understand this question, it’s not complicated.
1:21:29 Q: What do you mean, what happens to the brain?
1:21:31 K: What do you mean? If the computer can do most of the things that we do, then what’s going to happen to us?
1:21:38 Q: We will go to sleep and the computers will take over. Our brains will go to sleep and the computers will take over.
1:21:48 K: Yes, our brains will go to sleep. Now, before the computer came into being, we had to think, we had to calculate, we had to do this, we had to do that – put motor cars together. The computer with the robot can do all that, put a car together. I don’t know if you have seen on television, which I saw in California, the Honda factory in Japan. All the workers are dressed in white, with white gloves, and the computer and the robot were building a car. Something went wrong and the computer stopped the robot and all the machinery stopped. Then the computer corrected itself and told the robot what to do – the screw was not tight or something, I’ve forgotten – and the robot did it, then the whole machine started. So, if that’s coming, when the computer can do most of the things that we do – of course it cannot compose Beethoven; it won’t be a Beethoven or Mozart and so on – what’s going to happen to our brain – you understand? – when the brain has been active? You understand? Go into a supermarket; there the computer is in action. It calculates quicker than the person who is giving you a ticket, how much it costs – the computer with a laser beam is doing it instantly. Right? So the girl, she hasn’t to use her brain. You understand? So what’s going to happen to that brain?
1:24:12 Q: You become dull.
1:24:16 K: Dull – or what?
1:24:17 Q: Incapable of...

K: Or what?
1:24:19 Q: Insensitive.
1:24:21 K: Look at it, look at it carefully – or what?
1:24:24 Q: Incapable of doing anything.
1:24:31 K: No.

Q: Other than physical activities.
1:24:33 Q: It may be free to do more creative work.
1:24:35 K: No, sir, do look at it a little more closely.
1:24:39 Q: It becomes mechanical.
1:24:41 K: We are mechanical, we are programmed, therefore we are mechanical. Look at it a little more closely. The computer can do most of the things, and unless our brain is very active, it’s going to become dull, it’s going to wither. So what’s going to happen, not to wither? The entertainment industry is there – sports, football – you follow? – rituals, religious; it’s a vast industry of entertainment. So the brain is going to be entertained. Right? I don’t know if you have noticed on television there is more and more sports, cinemas, films. You can sit in your room and have any kind of film you want. So the entertainment industry is going to take over your brain. Right? Which is what is happening, sir!
1:26:05 Q: And the entertainment is also supplied by the computer.
1:26:08 K: Yes, sir, that’s what I am saying, the same thing.
1:26:14 Q: So we just become observers.

K: Or what next? If you are not being entertained, and you don’t want to be entertained, which becomes rather boring, then what?
1:26:32 Q: That wasn’t clear, the question.
1:26:36 K: The entertainment industry, which is vast, every magazine, every newspaper is entertaining you, and the churches are entertaining you sports, all that, that vast, intricate industry is shaping your brain telling you, ‘Enjoy yourself, don’t bother’. Right? Suppose you don’t pursue that, don’t want to be entertained, what will you do?
1:27:22 Q: Go into the mountains and walk.
1:27:24 K: You can’t everlastingly walk and go to the mountains.
1:27:33 Q: You have to sit down and find…
1:27:35 K: Find out, sir, look, question this. The entertainment industry is going to entertain you. That’s one way the vast majority of people are going to live – which they are doing now. And if you don’t pursue that business, then what is going to happen to your brain?
1:28:06 Q: It will become like the computer.
1:28:08 K: But the computer has taken over most of your job, most of the things you do, and better. So what is going to happen to your brain if it is not being entertained? Oh, you people don’t think about all this. You really don’t think about all these things. It’s there right under your nose, dangerous. What will you do?

Q: Try to destroy.
1:28:51 K: Sì. Your energy is destructive. Please answer my question. If you are not going to be entertained, and not caught by that industry, and the computer can do most of the things that you are doing – it can calculate, it can do extraordinary things. Of course it can’t look at the skies and enjoy, it can’t procreate, it can’t do certain things, but most of the things it can do. Maybe it will write poems – not as good as Keats, but it will write. It will invent gods, better than our gods. Right? And so what is going to happen to your brain? Either it’s going to be entertained for the rest of the years, or you turn in a totally different direction. Right? What is that direction? Please, we have discussed this matter with some of the prominent inventors of computers. They have never even thought about this question. You understand?
1:30:35 Q: Krishnaji, I feel what you are saying now is highly significant, because at the same time, for the first time in history man has leisure.
1:30:48 K: Yes, sir, that’s what I am saying. That’s just what I am saying. Man may have to work two or three hours a day and have long weekends. What will you do? Being entertained? Go off sailing? Listen to the computer, play games with the computer? That’s all vast entertainment, isn’t it? Is that what you are all going to do? No, don’t shake your head, sir, find out – it’s very, very serious. Either that or what else? I mean, I could say what else but it will have no meaning, unless you see very clearly that the entertainment industry is making you superficial, making you just enjoy watching football for the rest of your life. Right? Not football, but going to church and singing praises to the Lord. Then what will you do? There are only two courses left for us: either you pursue entertainment for the rest of the years – and generation after generation pursue entertainment – or you totally turn in a different direction. That direction is the investigation into the psychological world, going to great depths, and going beyond all that. You understand? There are only these two paths left for man now. I am not depressing you or bringing doomsday, but these are facts.
1:33:30 Q: (In Italian)
1:34:01 K: The gentleman is saying, ‘My difficulty is I cannot go very deeply into myself; and that’s my problem’, the gentleman is saying. Well, sir, do you see what is happening, how we are becoming more and more mechanical, more and more superficial, just living on the surface? Our education, our religions, politics, everything is becoming so monstrously superficial, just outside escape. It happens that you kindly listen. Right? At least listen – you may not do anything about it, but at least you spend an hour listening to some person like me. But the vast majority is not even concerned, and they rule the world. And to find out for oneself whether the brain can ever be free from any program, that means any memory. I won’t make it difficult – programming means memory. Right? On a small chip – what they call chip – six hundred million memories are in there, can be put in there. Right? So we are also nothing but memories. I know some of you won’t like this, but it’s a fact.
1:36:22 Q: Krishnaji, can I clarify one thing that you are saying?
1:36:29 K: Oh, clarify any amount.
1:36:32 Q: Supposing I am a young person. I enjoy football, I like getting exercise, I enjoy sailing and all these activities. Now, I enjoy those things but if I listen to you, what you’re saying, not that I should stop doing those things, but that I should also go deeply in another direction.
1:36:56 K: Yes, sir. I also may not go to football.
1:37:00 Q: All right, sir.
1:37:02 K: I may see it on television for ten minutes – what a damn bore it is, one man hitting one ball all the time, chasing the ball all over the place – it becomes rather silly.
1:37:14 Q: But anyway, I need some exercise of some kind.
1:37:18 K: Oh, I walk, I swim, I climb the mountain, but, sir...
1:37:24 Q: But then...
1:37:25 K: I used to play a great deal of golf – three rounds a day. I was pretty good at it – plus 2 and plus 4 I was at one time. And I watch sometimes the super-golfers. Right? After five minutes it’s enough. All right, but that’s not being caught by the industry. They are not entertaining me. It’s just like looking at that tree. But, sir, the whole political world, religious world, the cinema world, some of the literary world – it’s vast entertainment. I don’t think we realise it, how dangerously things have become... It’s not only I am saying this; Dr Bohm and others are saying the same thing. They haven’t gone so far as to say, ‘What’s going to happen to our brains?’ They’ll come to it presently. So, either you lose yourself in pleasure, amusement, superficial things, or you enter into a world that has no end, an immense depth, immense vastness. That’s for you to find out.
1:39:16 Q: But, Krishnaji, that sounds rather difficult. Can you indicate what might be a first step?
1:39:22 K: Nothing… Sir, why do you use the word ‘difficult’? ‘It’s difficult’ – we say difficult because we haven’t gone into it. For me it’s awfully difficult to sit through an hour watching football. I won’t go there, anyhow. So, if we could forget the word ‘difficult’ and forget the word ‘more’, ‘better’, then we can go into this. Our brains have been so conditioned that we are so limited. Right, sir? Limited – ‘I am British’, ‘I am concerned with my problems’, ‘I am stupid, I must be better, self-improve’ – all that childish stuff. I am not condemning, I am just pointing it out. But if you say, ‘Look, man isn’t just a superficial programmed entity; I want to find out what he is, I want to find out for myself whether there is something beyond all this nonsense’. And that means you have to look, watch, spend time. You follow? But if you start by saying how awfully difficult it is, then you will make it awfully difficult. I think we’d better stop now, don’t you? Right. You must be tired. I am not the only one voice; you are all the same. Right? I am not the only one dog barking. May I get up?