Krishnamurti - How will you stop being mediocre?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR83DSS1.5 - How will you stop being mediocre?
Brockwood Park, UK - 19 June 1983
Discussion with Staff and Students 1.5

0:19	Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about? Last time we met here I think we were talking about whether the brain, which generally deteriorates, whether it can be kept young. We went into that somewhat explicitly. And what would you like to talk about this morning?
1:20	Questioner: Can we look at the role of thought in relationship?
1:25	K: The role of thought in relationship.
1:34	Q: Krishnaji, a group of students were wanting to talk about death.
1:41	K: Death? On a lovely morning, yes? Do you want to talk about death? Q: Yes.
1:57	K: Two voices? Really, you want to talk about death? Or thought in relationship. What place has thought in relationship? Or perhaps we can include all these – death and relationship – what is mediocrity? Would you like to talk about that? Would you like to talk about that? What is mediocrity to you? To be mediocre.
2:51	Q: Well, the word means to go half the hill.
2:55	K: Half the hill, yes. The meaning of that word is to go half way up the hill and never go to the top of the hill. That is the root meaning of that word. Now, what do you think is mediocre, to be mediocre? There are great technologists, scientists, literate people, highly intellectual, extraordinarily capable – would you consider them mediocre, such people?
3:52	Q: In their respected fields they are not. In their fields they are not.
3:59	K: In other fields they are not.
4:01	Q: No, in their fields they are not mediocre.
4:04	K: In their fields they are not mediocre. Why do you separate their field and their life?
4:15	Q: Well, in another part of life they may be mediocre, such as…
4:22	K: I may be a great scientist and yet my life may be very mediocre. Right? So what do you think constitutes mediocrity?
4:49	Q: Not excellent.
5:06	K: I may be a great philosopher, well-known, extraordinarily clever in my expression, instigating my thought, and yet I may live a very narrow life, daily life. Right? Would you call such a person mediocre? The man, a man of great philosophy and yet live in daily life a mediocre life. So let’s find out what it means to be a mediocre. Right? As it’s been pointed out, the origin of that word is never going to the top of the hill, but only up the half way, which is never excellent but semi-excellent. Right? If I lead a life of jealousy and I am a great philosopher, suppose I am, and I am jealous, get angry, my personal thought is rather limited. Right? My outlook, though philosophically may be great, but in my daily life I am frightened. Right? So would you call such a person mediocre? I may be a great technocrat, that is a great technician, and yet I am ambitious, rather crude, vulgar, you know all the rest of it. Would you call that person mediocre?
7:27	Q: Krishnaji, I don’t think I could, because I don’t think I am any better than he is.
7:33	K: Yes. So, I am asking you: what to you is mediocrity?
7:51	Q: Not caring about what you are doing, your actions. It’s not caring about your actions, what you do. K: Yes. Would you call a person non-mediocre who lives not only in the area of science excellently, but also in one’s daily activities, in daily thoughts, in my relationship to another? Would you consider a person not mediocre who is whole?
8:39	Q: That person is not mediocre.
8:45	K: Yes. So are you?
8:47	Q: No. Oh, yes, I am.
8:51	K: Sorry, I am not being personal, sir, I am just asking. So, how will you stop being mediocre? Don’t apply to somebody else. I am asking myself, I realise I am mediocre, that is I am fragmented. You understand? I am a great scientist and yet rather shoddy in my relationship. Right? And I would call such a person mediocre. Right? Excellent in one direction and not excellent in another. Am I such a person? Apply it to yourself. Are you? And if one realises that one is mediocre, what will you do about it? Just accept that you are mediocre and go along for the rest of your life? What is your action? What is your behaviour? What is your way of life if it is mediocre? And will you accept it and go along that way or find out how to break that mediocrity? Come on. What will you do?
11:05	Q: See where it leads to, mediocrity. See where mediocrity would lead to.
11:11	K: What will you do about it? I realise, suppose I realise I am mediocre. I have no taste – you know what taste is – good taste, in clothes, in pictures, in everything I do I have no taste, suppose, and I accept that as my way of life. I don’t want to be criticised about my lack of taste. I think I have very good taste but actually I haven’t. Right? And you come along, as a friend, you say, ‘Look, you are not quite… you haven’t quite good taste, old boy’. What will you do about it? What can I do? I am asking. You think it out. It is not me. I am asking you. What will you do? What is your response when you find that one’s daily life is rather ugly. Lack of taste, lack of manners, lack of good behaviour and so on. What will you do? Just accept it and say that is very… I like to live that way. That is, to be contented, happy with what you are, with what you have got. Will you accept all that or will you bring about... break down the whole thing? Would you answer? You are all very quiet this morning.
13:24	Q: Krishnaji, I think one tries to change then.
13:29	K: Have you? Forgive me, I am not being personal. Q: Yes. I don’t know if the means I use lead me anywhere, but…
13:51	K: Sir, this is a rather an important question because, as the first question was raised, what is the…
14:05	Q: What is the role.
14:06	K: …what is the place, the role of thought in relationship, and if that role, if thought is merely rather shallow, concerned with oneself and limited in its outlook and activity, it is very, very destructive in relationship. Right? And that is what most, ninety nine per cent of the people live that way. The vast majority of humanity live that way. So, you, if one realises the activity of mediocrity, how can I end that? First of all, I would be horrified to find myself mediocre. Are you?
15:34	Q: I think maybe the reasons why we want to get rid of that mediocrity is mediocrity itself, that you are afraid to be mediocre. I think maybe the motives where we want to get rid of our mediocrity is that we are afraid or that we want to be something big and something real good. K: No. No, sir. I hear you say this to me, that I am mediocre. I realise I am mediocre. Do I want to remain in that state? Because it is very comfortable. I don’t have to do anything. Right? I just go along for the rest of my life. But if I realise that mediocrity is rather absurd, rather ugly, what am I to do? Answer that question, sir.
16:44	Q: Well, if I find that I am mediocre, how can I do anything?
16:48	K: No, why not? Q: Well, I am mediocre. That is going half way up the hill. If I can go only half way up the hill...
16:55	K: Go up the rest of the way up the hill.
16:57	Q: Well, how can I?
16:58	K: If you can go half way, go up the rest. Don’t say, ‘How can I?’ You see, that statement ‘how can I’ already limits you.
17:16	Q: And that is mediocrity. K: That is mediocrity. Are we like that? ‘How can I?’ I haven’t got the strength, I am lazy, I have so many other things to do. I would like to be like the rest but I can’t. You follow? All the excuses, reasons, logical and illogical that keeps me half way up the hill. What will you do? How will you gather energy to go up to the top of the hill? Come on, sir.
18:21	Q: Well, there must be some actions that lead to mediocrity.
18:32	K: Yes, I am asking you. Q: By saying that…
18:33	K: I realise I am half way up the hill.
18:37	Q: Yes.
18:41	K: And I find a great many excuses to remain there. Do you find that is happening to you, a great many excuses? Perhaps some of them right or necessary, others just imaginative, to prevent you from going to the top of the hill. Now, seeing that, what will you do?
19:21	Q: Sir, doesn’t making that change imply a certain amount of effort, which often causes you to be very frustrated, perhaps, or feel as though you’re in conflict to try and change that mediocrity? If you feel that obviously there is something wrong in your life and you want to improve on it, often it requires, or often it means that there is conflict, because one part of you is perfectly happy with it and the other part is wishing that you were little bit better.
19:57	K: Yes, sir, but what will you do at the end of it? You have given certain reasons for mediocrity, for being mediocre, and one stops there. Right? What will push you up the hill? Let’s put it so directly. What will urge you or push you, or do you need somebody to push you up the hill? Or do you want télésiège to push you up? You know what télésiège is? Q: No.
20:38	K: You know in Switzerland, and I am sure they are here too, in different parts of the world, to reach to the top of the hill they have electrical chairs hung on cables. When they ski they go right up and then slither down. And you can do that too but that is... You understand? So who will push you up? Yes, sir? An ideal? Desire?
21:23	Q: That can do it.
21:26	K: Go into it, sir. Slowly, step by step, find out. Do you need another person to push you up?
21:34	Q: Not necessarily.
21:35	K: No. Don’t say not necessarily. Do you need it to go up to the top of the hill? Not the actual hill but – you understand? Mediocre, we said, is a person who goes half way up the hill. That is only a metaphor, a simile, but actually human beings always go a little way, in themselves. Right? Not in the world of technology, in the world of business, in the world of science and so on – they go there to their utmost. Right? But when it comes to their own lives they move inch by inch or not move at all. Right? And they never demand of themselves excellence. Right? So I am asking, when you are in that state, do you need somebody to push you, to drive you, to reward you or to punish you?
23:13	Q: If we do, then we are staying mediocre.
23:16	K: Yes. So, just listen to it, that is, reward and punishment, any action taken because there is reward or there is punishment, that is one of the essences of mediocrity. Would you consider that? You heard what I said? If I want to go up the hill because I shall have a reward or I will be punished, that is mediocrity. That is what all the people in the world, whether kings or lords or great priests or anything, they depend on reward and punishment. Right? The reward may be power. The reward may be money. The reward may be reputation. The reward may be a sense of achievement. You understand? So, if you do for any reward, which means you don’t want to be punished, that is a quality of a mind that is mediocre. You are climbing to the top of the hill in order to gain a reward. It is like – right?
25:07	Q: What, we don’t want to be punished? You don’t want to be punished then, do you?
25:11	K: Or because you are going to be punished you go to the top of the hill. Q: Right.
25:18	K: So, mediocrity depends on reward and punishment. Would you see that? Are we like that? Each one of us. I do something because I am going to gain something. That is a reward. Or I do something because I may be punished. Right? So, I depend for my action on reward or punishment. And we say that is the very nature of mediocrity. Right? Are we like that, each one of us?
26:15	Q: It sounds like you are describing my early school days.
26:19	K: I am asking you sir, now, are we like that, each one of us? Depending on reward and punishment. This is a very serious question. Because some of the psychologists are advocating reward. I wonder if you understand all this. Because man has always been punished – if you don’t do this, I will punish you. In religion, especially in part of Christianity – if you don’t believe that, I am going to torture you. Right? So I say yes, I believe that. So is your action based on reward and punishment? This is a very good question. Go on, sir, examine it carefully.
27:38	Q: Sir, if you act because you reject something, in other words you see that you are mediocre and you reject that mediocrity...
27:48	K: You can’t reject mediocrity. Q: Why not?
27:53	K: Because you don’t understand the nature of mediocrity.
27:56	Q: Well, perhaps you do. In other words, you recognise... you become aware of mediocrity in yourself and you reject that mediocrity.
28:06	K: Yes, but it may be a very superficial rejection.
28:11	Q: Well, let’s assume that it isn’t.
28:14	K: Ah, no, don’t let’s assume anything, if you don’t mind. Actually I find myself that I depend on reward and punishment for my action. Suppose I do. And you come along and say, ‘Look, that is the very nature of mediocrity’. Right? And I see that’s so, then what takes place then? You understand my question? Do you see the truth that any action based on reward and punishment is very, very shallow, mediocre, rather absurd. Do you see that?
29:13	Q: Yes.
29:15	K: I go to the church in order that some image may help me to do something, get over my pain. I worship God because I am frightened. You understand? And that worship is mediocre worship. Would you agree to that? Don’t be so startled or blank. What do you say to all this? So is there an action that is not based on reward and punishment? Won’t you ask that question?
30:14	Q: I think that’s very much related to freedom because not being dependent, you’re depending on either reward or punishment if your actions depend on that.
30:31	K: Would you... does it... has it any value, that statement, to you personally, that reward and punishment is not worthwhile? You see, do we move away from the responsibility of understanding that question? So that I say others are mediocre but I am not. Or do you say, ‘Look, let me look at this’? Am I acting, thinking, is my motive based on reward and punishment? That is one of the aspects of mediocrity. Right? We can go into the others. First, do I understand that? And can I act without any reward or punishment? See what is implied in it. If I act without reward and punishment, I am not jealous anymore, I have no envy anymore. Right? Do you see that? All right, let’s look at the other way. Are you jealous? Are we jealous? Q: Yes.
32:20	K: Great silence. Does that mean we are? Q: Yes.
32:31	K: Be simple, sir. If we are, we are. Let’s be honest and look at it. The grown-ups as well as us. I mean, not ‘us’. We are all jealous, aren’t we? What does that mean to be envious?
32:59	Q: It means that if I see John has a Porsche, I say…
33:07	K: No, find out the feeling, the feeling of envy.
33:12	Q: The feeling of having nothing.
33:15	K: And the other fellow? Q: Has something.
33:17	K: So, the feeling of it. What is your feeling when you are envious?
33:28	Q: Greed.
33:32	K: No, that is another word. I am asking: what is the feeling when there is – this word used to convey that feeling. The feeling. When you see somebody having a car and you haven’t got it, I am asking you: what is that feeling? Somebody has a great deal of money, great house, lovely pictures and so on, and you look at it and say, ‘My God!’ Does it happen to you? Or you are all saints. Does it happen to you? Yes? Would you call that mediocre? Understand the nature of it, because there is also involved reward. Right? And punishment may be envy. You understand? No, I won’t... it is too... Now, stick to it. You have this feeling, haven’t you? Come on sirs. Yes? Good. Now, why do you remain with it?
35:14	Q: Sorry, I couldn’t hear that. I couldn’t hear what you said.
35:18	K: They said yes, the majority. All of you are envious, obviously. No?
35:23	Q: Yes.
35:25	K: Why are you so shy? If I say how beautiful you are, you will wake up. Now, look at it carefully. Envy, that feeling and that word, is associated with punishment. Right? ‘One should not be envious’. ‘It is awful to be openly envious’. But secretly, secretively, to be envious is all right. You understand? But you say, ‘Yes, I am envious of you’. You understand? No, this is too... Go into it. We are all envious. That is a common factor of all human beings. Right? Right, sir? Many: Yes.
36:34	K: And we are envious, each one of us. Would you call that mediocre, to be envious of somebody? We are not what we are but we like to be like you. You understand? I am dissatisfied with what I am but I would like to be like you who are bright, intelligent, intellectual, clever, beautiful, blah, blah, all that. That is, I am nothing but you are everything. You understand that?
37:32	Q: Krishnaji, I am envious but if I then say that’s mediocrity, in fact I am avoiding the fact that I am envious.
37:43	K: Yes, I am coming to that. I am envious. I won’t even call it mediocrity for the moment. I am envious, as most people are in the world. Not in the world only, but here. Are we aware of the meaning of that word, how it arises, what are the consequences of envy? Are we aware of the feeling and the contents of that word? All right. I am envious. Fortunately I have never been, but I suppose I am. I am envious of you. What does that mean?
38:49	Q: Well, first of all it means that you are unhappy with what you have and what you are.
38:55	K: Yes. I am dissatisfied with what I am, what I have. Physically I am dissatisfied with what I have, because my house or my flat is just very small, a couple of rooms, and here I see a house with dozen rooms and a lovely garden and I feel, ‘My god, I wish I had that’. Right? Which means what? Go into it, my friend. Go into it.
39:31	Q: You are comparing.
39:37	K: Not only comparing, but before I compare – I don’t want to use the word; look at it carefully. I am a dull man and you are very bright. I want to be like you. Which means I am denying what I am but I would like to be like you. Right? I am denying what I am. Are you doing that? Oh, come on, sirs.
40:21	Q: Yes, I think one does that.
40:24	K: Do you agree to that? Q: Yes.
40:28	K: I deny ‘what is’. So I must be ‘what should be’. Right? I deny that I am poor, that I have a small house, and I want to be like that. So, there is not only comparison but the feeling that I am dissatisfied with what I am, what I have, and pursue satisfaction.
41:07	Q: I also have an image of what it is like to be you, sir. I also have an idea of what it’s like to be you.
41:16	K: How can you be like me?
41:18	Q: Well, if you have a big house, I assume that by having a big house you are in some way better or bigger.
41:26	K: I may be as cuckoo as you. Q: Exactly.
41:31	K: I may be as mediocre as the man who envies me. Right? I wonder if you are catching on to all this. Are you?
41:51	Q: Sir, the thing is that it is much easier to compare myself with another than to say, ‘All right, this is what I am and I have to face my problems’.
42:02	K: That’s all I am saying. Begin with that. You understand? Begin with what you are and see what you are, and don’t compare and say, ‘I am lacking that, I wish I had that man’s wealth’, or his looks or his intelligence. You understand? I am... Look, by comparison I make myself dull, right? You are bright, I am not. Right? By comparing myself with you who are bright I make myself dull. Right? But if I don’t compare, what happens? Am I dull?
42:53	Q: No. Do answer me that question, carefully.
42:58	Q: I think you are just what you are.
42:59	K: No, don’t say that. Actually, is that what you say, what you feel? If you don’t compare yourself with a man who is terribly alive, terribly intelligent, if you don’t compare, what are you? Are you dull?
43:27	Q: I may be dull. I may or may not be dull.
43:33	K: Does comparison make you dull? Or you are dull?
43:41	Q: No, I am dull.
43:43	K: How do you know? Q: Well…
43:46	K: Think it out carefully, go slowly into it.
43:52	Q: I have an image of myself. K: No, sir. No. Are you dull because you compare yourself with another who is not dull? If you don’t compare, are you dull?
44:08	Q: No.
44:09	K: You are what you are. Begin with that, without comparing. You understand my question? I compare myself with you and therefore I feel I am dull. If I don’t compare I say, ‘I don’t know what dullness is’. So I start from there, that is my basis, that is my foundation. Right? Will you do that? Therefore, don’t compare. You understand what I am saying? Oh, for God’s sake, come on, sirs! We started out by asking: what is mediocrity? The root meaning of that word is going half way up the hill, both physically and psychologically. Right? That means never demanding of ourselves excellence. Right?
45:30	Q: In all areas. K: In all areas. Physically, technologically, and inwardly, excellent, excellent behaviour, excellent – so on. And we say as long as you remain half way up the hill, never demanding of yourself the highest, that is in itself the essence of mediocrity. Right? Is this clear? Are you?
46:11	Q: Could you repeat that please? I don’t know, I just…
46:15	K: Aha, you were somewhere else. I will repeat it. We said the meaning of that word, half way up the hill – we never ask of ourselves, demand of ourselves to be supreme. Supreme in the world of technology, in that field, and also inwardly. You understand? That means... supreme, excellence means never jealousy. Of course, jealousy is... Right? Right? You understand? Q: Yes.
47:09	K: Will you demand, will you see that you are not jealous? If you are, you are not asking of yourself the highest.
47:28	Q: Aren’t such words as the highest, supreme and excellence comparative terms?
47:32	K: Ah yes, I know that is a difficult word, all these words are difficult, but highest means excellence, to be at the top of your demand. I demand that I – that I should not be jealous. I demand it. And I see why shouldn’t I, what are the causes of jealousy, envy and so on, and finish with it. But to keep on for the rest of your life being jealous, envious, is so... that is very mediocre. You understand? Right? Now are you doing that? Asking of yourself to be excellent in everything, not just in one direction. If you are doing gardening, excellent. Right? If you are working in the scientific world, to be excellent. And if you are saying, ‘Well, I must understand myself, what I am, what I should be’, be supreme at it. Right? Are you like that? If you are not, don’t condemn it by calling, ‘I am mediocre’. You understand? If you are not asking of yourself the ‘highest’, in quotes.
49:25	Q: If I am not? K: If you are not, don’t condemn it by saying, ‘I am mediocre’. Then ask why you’re not. You understand? But if you condemn, ‘Oh, that is mediocrity’, you just condemn it. But if you say, ‘All right, why am I not asking of myself, inwardly, the highest?’ You know the highest. I am using that word for the moment, with certain hesitation.
50:01	Q: Well, I am not asking because I am mediocre.
50:04	K: No, then you are condemning it. You are missing it.
50:12	Q: He thinks that because he has once seen himself as being mediocre, that that means that he is forever in that state.
50:20	K: Yes. If I find myself... I am mediocre, after hearing all this, this morning’s verbal exchange, and I see I am mediocre, I say, ‘God, why am I like that? What is the reason of it?’ I don’t accept mediocrity. You understand? I say, ‘Why am I like that?’ Am I comparing myself with somebody who is not mediocre? If I am, I am jealous of him. Comparison is one of the factors of jealousy envy. Right? So I won’t compare.
51:12	Mary Zimbalist: Sir, if you realise that you are mediocre, it’s in comparison to something that uses, chooses the word ‘mediocrity’, some other potential there… It may not be to somebody else but it’s of some value.
51:33	K: Unfortunately most of us don’t realise we are mediocre.
51:37	MZ: No, in order to realise it, don’t we have to see that scale all the time?
51:44	K: There is no scale, that’s what I am saying.
51:47	MZ: You said ‘half way up’. You said it’s partial, it isn’t all the way.
51:51	K: There is no scale. As long as you have a scale, better and better and this and that, that is mediocrity.
52:03	MZ: But sir, how do you determine you’re mediocre if you don’t see the scale? K: I am going into it. How do I realise I am mediocre, Mrs Zimbalist is asking. How do you realize, sir? Come on.
52:21	Q: Without comparison.
52:29	Q: You see that you are not responding to something fully.
52:36	K: Yes, that is one of the factors, isn’t it? That in your relationship with another you are not responding fully? What does that mean?
52:55	Q: You think in one way and you act in a different way.
52:58	K: No, sir. He said that when you respond fully, completely, harmoniously, that state has no... it is not a state of mediocrity. Right? What does that mean, ‘respond to it’?
53:29	Q: That you are totally attentive? That you are completely attentive to the other person?
53:34	K: What does it mean to you, to respond completely?
53:48	Q: It might mean that your response is not of a fragment and therefore it is not divisive.
54:02	K: So, how do you know that you are not acting from a fragment?
54:12	Q: Well, I think one knows one acts from a fragment.
54:14	K: That’s what I want to find out, sir. How do you know? First of all, begin again, do you realise we are fragmented?
54:32	Q: Yes. K: Yes? Realise actually that you are different persons. Right? When you meet somebody who is wealthy, powerful there is a different response to that. Right? When you meet somebody who is not, there is a different response. So, that is fragmentation when there is a response to a power which is different, and a response to poverty is quite different. Right? You understand what I am saying? Right? Are you like that?
55:23	Q: Yes.
55:25	K: Which means you are fragmented. Isn’t it? Right? Responding in one way and responding in another way shows that you are broken up. No? So can you respond, whether it’s to wealth, poverty, to a priest and so on, so on, so on – respond without variations.
56:04	Q: Our response might be various according to circumstances.
56:08	K: Therefore it means what?
56:11	Q: I mean it might be appropriately different.
56:14	K: Not necessarily. Why do you ‘appropriately different’? Why should I respond differently to the pope?
56:25	Q: I don’t mean in the sense of respect for power.
56:29	K: No, I am asking you. Break it up. Respond in one way to the pope, one way to the prime minister, one way to the general, one way to a poor man and so on. Different responses. They are not adequate because in me power is more important than poverty. Right? Therefore I respond differently to power, to money, position, authority, and I have no response to a man who has nothing. Right? I wonder if you are understanding all this.
57:26	Q: Sir, it seems to me that things that we are talking about now, it has something to do with the feeling of respect we were talking about the other day.
57:41	K: Yes, we were talking about respect. Don’t bring that in for the moment. Sir, how can I convey to you a sense that a life in which there is no comparison and therefore no envy and therefore seeing things as they are in you, and change that, not try to become the other. You understand what I am saying? Q: Yes.
58:31	K: Suppose, sir, I am a poor, fairly well-educated man, and I see you, highly educated sophisticated, having everything that you need, and I am not, I haven’t got all that. I am envious of you. I want all that you have, too. I would like to have that. Right? Now, I see where it is going to lead me when I compare myself with you. Do you see that? Do you see where it will lead me? It will lead me to conflict with you, jealous of you, denying what I am, dissatisfied with what I am all that takes place when I want to be like you. Right? Which is a series of conflicts. Right? Now, look at it round the other way. I don’t compare myself with you at all. I am what I am. Right? I have a flat, or one room, and I am not dull. I am what I am. Right? I am not dull. Dullness exists only when I compare myself with you. Do you agree to that? So, I am not dull, I am what I am. That is the basis from which I start. The other is fictitious. I don’t...
1:00:58	MZ: Krishnaji, is the comparison most destructive when it’s between people? Say I realise I am ignorant. I am ignorant about physics. Well, I am picking something neutral. I know I am ignorant about this. I am not saying I know more than Ken or less than Ken, I just say I am ignorant about physics. Now there is a comparative statement in there. I don’t know physics. Is that comparison?
1:01:38	K: Yes. Surely. Last night, did you hear Naipaul being interviewed by Levin? Yes?
1:01:47	Q: Yes.
1:01:48	K: You know who is Naipaul? Q: No. He is a great, well-known writer. Tremendously well-known. And he was being interviewed by Bernard Levin. You know Bernard Levin – he was here. He interviewed this person. And I watched it for about 20 minutes. Naipaul is very, very clever, highly intellectual, travelled all over the world, written innumerable books, rewarded, and he talked about his childhood, his youth, and he didn’t like his youth. You follow? Now, I listened to him. He is very famous and I am not. Suppose. I am not. I don’t want to be famous. But did any feeling of envy arise in me? You understand my question? Oh, come on, sir.
1:03:09	Q: But that is again person to person.
1:03:11	K: I am coming to that. I want to stick to person to person.
1:03:15	Q: So comparison of a different quality is not...
1:03:20	K: I understand all that, Maria. I am saying, I am asking you, when you see a beautiful actress or a beautiful actor, do you have a feeling, ‘By Jove, I would like to be that’?
1:03:43	Q: Yes. Yes, it seems to have become a mechanical response that as soon as you see it you already have the drive.
1:03:52	K: Yes. So, that feeling exists. Right? What do you… Is that fragmentary? Of course it is. I see somebody in top hat walking down, going out to Ascott and you know, all that stuff, and I am a cook. You know all this business, don’t you? And the whole world is like this. You understand? Whether you go to India, whether you go to China, whether you go to Russia, everywhere it is the same phenomenon. Everybody is jealous of each other. Right? Don’t you know this?
1:04:57	Q: Everybody? How can you say everybody?
1:05:02	K: Sir, there are exceptions, all right. My grandmother and my father were the exception. You see, why can’t you be the exception? To remain not exceptional is mediocre. I go to a house and I see beautiful furniture, a lovely carpet, marvellous pictures – personally I have no feeling of that kind at all. It doesn’t mean a damn thing to me. I have no feeling, ‘Oh my God, I wish I had that’, because I have treated myself as a guest wherever I am. I would feel I am a guest of the world, guest on this earth, therefore I am a guest. You follow? It is very simple. You understand what I am saying? Will you be like that?
1:06:35	Q: Well, if I be…
1:06:36	K: Never allow a feeling of being jealous, envious, because that means… it is so stupid. It means I have no foundation from which I start. You understand? That is why I get confused, I struggle, all that. If I say I am what I am – right? I may be dull, I may be stupid, I may be this or that. That is what I am. Right? That is the foundation on which you build a house. But if you are always comparing yourself with somebody, your foundation is very… no foundation. You can’t build a house on it. You understand? So, to have a clarity, to have a foundation that is stable, constant, that is not breaking up, changing, that foundation can only exist as long as you are what you are, and from there move. Right? So, comparison, jealousy is out. If that exists, you are going to be constantly uncertain, weary, struggling to be something. You follow? You will be something if you start from what you are – if you want to be something. Now, you raised a question: what role has thought in relationship. Right? You raised it. You answer my question, that question. What role, what place has thought in relationship. You understand? Role, part, thought, relationship. Now what is relationship? Actually – don’t idealise it, or imagine it, or say it should be, but actually what is it?
1:09:44	Q: Well, you and I are in direct contact with each other.
1:09:49	K: No, I am asking, sir, you say relationship is – are you? – when there is direct contact. Is that what you are saying? Physical contact?
1:10:02	Q: Not only that. K: Sexual contact?
1:10:07	Q: All of it. K: Wait sir. ‘All of it’ – I don’t know what you mean by ‘all of it’. Begin slowly, step by step. When you say relationship is to be in complete contact with another, do you mean physically? You say yes?
1:10:36	Q: Why?
1:10:38	Q: I don’t know why he says that.
1:10:40	K: He said so. I am asking why.
1:10:42	Q: There are plenty of people that I have relationship to, perhaps, where I don’t have intimate physical contact.
1:10:50	K: Wait, sir. I want to find out what is it to be related.
1:10:55	Q: Oh, no, I didn’t mean…
1:11:01	K: No, stick to what you said, sir. Q: Yes.
1:11:03	K: Stick to what you said. There is a lot in it. Don’t be bamboozled by us, stick to what you have said. To be completely… That is real fact, but we are not. You said relationship means to be completely in contact with another. Right? I asked: does it mean physically, which means sensuously, sex, or does it mean psychologically, inwardly in contact with you, with another completely? Right? Which do you mean? All that, you said. Physically, sensuously, sexually, and inwardly too. Which means no division. Not Mr Joe, Miss X. So there is no division psychologically. Agree? So, where there is division there is no relationship. Right? If I go my way and my wife or my friend or my girlfriend goes another way, not physically but emotionally, imaginatively, religiously – she believes in Catholicism, I don’t. I am a Buddhist or a cranky something or other and she isn’t. There is no relationship. She is ambitious, I am ambitious. Is there relationship?
1:13:23	Q: If both of us are ambitious?
1:13:25	K: She is ambitious for herself and I am ambitious to become a great painter or whatever it is. Have I contact with her? No. So, there is no contact if we are different religions. Just a minute, go slowly. I may be Catholic, she may be a Catholic, but yet there is division. Right? Agree to that?
1:14:00	Q: If I am a Catholic and my wife is Catholic...
1:14:02	K:...there is no division.
1:14:05	Q: Is that what you are saying?
1:14:06	K: We think there is no division. Right? That is clear, isn’t it? Come on, sir. If I am a Protestant and she is Catholic, there is struggle. But if we belong to the same cult, but I believe a bit more than she does... Right? My Jesus is greater than her Jesus. Or she has a greater saviour than mine. So, belief is a dividing factor.
1:15:00	Q: Yes.
1:15:02	K: Right? So I cannot have complete psychological contact with her in relationship if there is belief between us.
1:15:18	Q: What do you mean, complete contact?
1:15:22	K: We said complete, physically, psychologically, in every way.
1:15:30	Q: Well, just because there is trouble does that mean there is not contact?
1:15:36	K: If I have trouble, if I have problems and she hasn’t, can I have contact with her?
1:15:45	Q: Well, you do have contact with her. I mean, look, I live with these people every day and if I don’t get along with some of them, it doesn’t mean there’s no relationship.
1:15:56	K: No, I didn’t say ‘get along’. Just listen to what I said. I said – oh, I don’t like to repeat, repeat, repeat. Just listen. She is a Catholic, I am a Protestant. Right? She is American, I am a Zulu, barbarian. You know what the word ‘barbarian’ means? It comes from the old Greeks and Romans – those who did not speak the same language. That’s Latin or Greek. Or also it means those who are not within the empire. The Roman Empire or within the state, Greek states, you know, Sparta, Athens and so on. As long as they belong to a state they are not barbarian and speak the same language, but if they are outside the state, outside the empire and do not speak the same language, they are barbarians. That is just a side explanation of ‘barbarous’. I looked up that word very carefully in several dictionaries. So, can I have contact wholly with another who is a worshipper of Mrs Thatcher – I am bringing it home – and I am not?
1:17:52	Q: We can’t. K: You can’t. Right?
1:17:58	Q: How we know if the contact is complete?
1:18:01	K: I will tell you. We said contact means, according to him, not only physical contact but complete psychological contact. Complete in the sense no division in my relationship with another.
1:18:19	Q: I haven’t.
1:18:22	K: What is the difficulty?
1:18:24	Q: I don’t understand. I am afraid I don’t understand what you mean when you say a complete psychological relationship.
1:18:33	K: There is no such thing, I am saying. He says that is it. I will explain. Complete contact means psychologically no division. Right? That’s all.
1:18:50	Q: Well, okay. K: Not ‘okay’.
1:18:54	Q: Well, you see the thing is that we are taking that as our definition and then we are going around and saying that…
1:18:59	K: No, I am not. It is not a definition. We are asking… he asked, the original question was: what role does thought play in relationship? Right? I said, what do you mean by that word ‘relationship’? And he said complete contact with another. Right? He said that.
1:19:30	Q: Did you say complete contact? Q: Yes, I did.
1:19:33	K: Yes, darling. Q: Yes.
1:19:35	K: And I said, what do you mean complete contact? And we went into it. We said as long as there is a division psychologically – you understand? – inwardly, there cannot be complete contact. If I am going one way and she is going another way, but we meet in bed, that is not complete contact. Right? Q: Right.
1:20:01	K: If she is ambitious, I am ambitious in my way and she is ambitious in another way, there is no contact.
1:20:09	Q: There may be some contact but it is superficial.
1:20:12	K: Ah, I don’t… Look, we said complete contact, don’t introduce the word ‘superficial’.
1:20:18	Q: I think Katie is trying to say that we may still disagree about things or go different ways…
1:20:23	K: Then we tolerate each other. Q: Yes.
1:20:25	K: My God! You tolerate your wife? What are you people talking about?
1:20:33	Q: (Inaudible)
1:20:38	K: I am not… He used it… I am trying to show – please forgive me for pointing out – there is no, at present, complete contact with another, as long as there is division. That’s all. Right?
1:21:00	Q: Yes.
1:21:00	K: You agree? Q: Okay.
1:21:04	K: You are sure? Q: Yes.
1:21:07	K: That as long as there is a division in any way, psychologically, inwardly, there is no relationship. I don’t use the word ‘complete’.
1:21:22	Q: Yes. If relationship is complete contact, yes.
1:21:25	K: Yes. So as long as I am jealous of somebody, as long as I am pursuing my own ambition, my own greed, my own this, this, and she is doing the same thing in her way, there is no relationship. Agree? Q: Yes.
1:21:46	K: So I am pointing out that as long as there is division between us there is no relationship, neither superficial nor deep. There may be sexual responses. You follow? That is something different. All right. Now he asked: what is the role thought plays in relationship? We have defined into what is relationship. Right? Now we are going to question: what is thought? Right? We went into it very, very carefully the other day. We will go into it again. We said thought is limited, because all experience is limited. Right? You see that. That is a fact. There is no experience that is complete, full, ending. So experience is limited and from experience there is knowledge, therefore knowledge will always be incomplete. You agree? You can see it. Science has been more or less functioning for the last two to three thousand years, more. Galileo said the Earth is... No, the Church, Roman Catholic Church said the whole universe turns round the earth. Galileo said no, the Earth goes round. And they were going to torture him but he said ‘All right, all right’ – he accepted it. Poor chap, you would do the same and I would do the same. But science has come along and said, ‘Galileo, you are right’. Right? Gradual accumulation of knowledge. Right? Clear? So knowledge is being added to more and more and more. Right? Therefore it is limited. Agree? Knowledge is always limited, whether in the past or in the future. Agree? And so knowledge is memory. Right? Agree to that? Do you see that? Without memory there is no knowledge. So, experience, knowledge, memory. Right? Please, are you listening to all this? I don’t have to repeat umpteen times, it’s so obvious. Experience. From experience there is knowledge. That knowledge is always limited because experience is limited. And memory. Memory is limited. From memory thought arises. If there is no memory, there is no thought. Right? Are you quite sure? Q: Yes.
1:25:43	K: I study biology and I have accumulated a lot of information, so-called knowledge. Right? And that knowledge is limited. From that I begin to think biologically. Right? Now, he asked what role has thought in relationship. Right? We said what relationship is. Right? Now we said what thought is. Right? Are you getting tired? If you are tired, let’s stop. Are you tired? Q: No.
1:26:40	K: You are not? You should be tired, shouldn’t you? If you are thinking actively as we are doing, your brain must be confused, rattled. Let’s finish it. So, he has asked: what role does thought play in relationship? We said relationship, there is no relationship if there is division. You agreed to all that. What causes the division?
1:27:21	Q: Thought. K: Thought. Watch it carefully. We made very clear what is relationship. Right? We made very clear, we clarified what thought is. Right? And we said thought is limited, whether it is the scientist’s thought, or the pope’s thought or the prime minister’s thought or your thought, or anybody’s thought, whether the Eastern thought or the Western thought, thought is always limited. And he asked: what role has thought in relationship? I say, we say that thought has created the division in relationship. I want to be a great man and she doesn’t. Wanting to be a great man is the movement of thought. Right? And she said, ‘For God’s sake, I want to live a simple life’. And also her wanting a simple life is also the activity of thought. Right? Are you following all this? So thought has brought about the division in relationship, psychologically. Right?
1:29:16	Q: So seeing that, it has no role. So seeing that, thought is limited. K: Now wait a minute. Therefore to have complete… or to have a relationship, a relationship that is deep, fundamental, thought has no place in relationship. If thought has a role in relationship, it breeds division, conflict. Right? Have you such relationship in which thought doesn’t play? Have you? Of course you haven’t. So find out. Don’t say yes, thought plays a part in my relationship. Go into it, break it up. Don’t say yes, that is natural, that’s inevitable – you follow? Find out. Move from there.
1:30:47	Q: Well, thought is all we have – how can we move?
1:30:51	K: Look, I will tell you. I will show you. Do you see the truth of this? Truth, not just the idea of it or the theory or the explanation, but do you see the truth that there is division in relationship and thought which is limited, has created this division, and therefore conflict and all the rest of it. So, you see that. That is the fact, that is the truth. Right? If you see that is dangerous, you do something. You don’t say, ‘Yes, all right, all right’. When you meet a dangerous snake you move away from it, you do something. Here, apparently, you don’t. This is much more dangerous than the snake, much more dangerous than the politicians.
1:32:03	Q: Well, if saw that I would move. If I saw that, that it is much more dangerous than a poisonous snake, I’d do something about it, but at the moment I don’t see it that way.
1:32:14	K: Why? After all this explanation you don’t see it? No, you are quite right, sir. None of us... Don’t. You are right, stick to it. We don’t see tribalism is a danger. Right? Nationalism is a poison. We don’t see that. I am British, I am French.
1:32:38	Q: Well, we can see up to a certain point.
1:32:41	K: No, no. If you see it, don’t be French, don’t be British, or American or a Hindu or whatever it is. Have a passport though – careful! That’s what I mean. If you see something to be true, put away the false. Don’t argue: who sees it? I will come to that later. But see if something is true, then the false has no place. If you see nationalism, tribalism, which is now becoming popular more and more, is colossally dangerous because it is going to bring war, and you say, ‘Well, I won’t belong to any tribe’. Not that you will affect the war, but you won’t belong to any tribe. You understand the difference?
1:33:54	Q: But Krishnaji... K: You are doing the right thing.
1:33:58	Q: Just now he said thought is all we have. He said thought is all we have – I question whether that is so.
1:34:07	K: I never said thought…
1:34:09	Q: Ken said that, just now.
1:34:11	K: I know he said that but I didn’t want to take him up with it, because it is not the right occasion, because we are pursuing one thing. Right? Do you see the false as false? Nationalism is false. False in the sense, it has nothing in it, just words, words, words.
1:34:53	Q: I don’t see that nationalism is false.
1:34:58	K: You don’t see nationalism as poison?
1:35:07	Q: Well... K: Just a minute. I belong to this little island. Right? I am British and twenty two miles across there, French, French, French. A little further north, Dutch, German, Norwegian, all saying we are... In other words, they are holding on to tribalism, and tribalism invariably brings wars. That’s all. If you like wars, to kill others and be killed, all right, but if you see the danger of this, you say, ‘Sorry, it’s out’. There is no effort, there is no, ‘What am I to do? Tell me what to do’, you say, ‘That is danger, I won’t go near it’. Right? Are you doing that? No, that’s just it. We see danger and we do nothing. What is wrong with you? If you see a snake, dangerous snake, I’ll just step on it, you say, ‘I don’t care, it’s all right’. All right, that is one way of living.
1:36:46	Q: Or dying.
1:36:47	K: Yes that’s right, you die. It’s all right. But see that’s a snake, danger, and move. So, what is wrong with you when you see danger and not move? Which means you don’t really see the danger of nationalism, because you are so conditioned, so programmed like a computer, you repeat, repeat, repeat – I am a Hindu, I am a German, I am a Swiss. It is getting awfully difficult to get passports to all these places.
1:37:31	Q: So are you saying thought, which is limited, clouds our perception?
1:37:36	K: That’s right, sir. At last. So if you want to see clearly, no prejudice, no opinion, no conclusion, don’t be biased, don’t have any bias. That is very simple. If you want to. If you don’t, then you bring up all the reasons. Fortunately, at least you listen to all this. Right? Perhaps it will enter into your brain sometime. But talk to the pope or to Mrs Thatcher or to the politicians, they won’t hear it. They won’t even let you come near. In the old days they would have burnt you. That’s the end of it. I think we’d better stop, don’t you? You are tired. All right, sir. Sorry, may I get up?