Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR83DT2.2 - Why can’t we think together?
Brockwood Park, UK - 18 October 1983
Discussion with Teachers 2.2



0:21 Krishnamurti: What shall we start on?
0:24 Ray McCoy: Krishnaji, could we talk some more about thinking together? I am not clear exactly what it means.
0:39 Juan Hancke: A relationship, perhaps we could talk about affection.
0:46 K: Affection.
0:48 JH: Because the affection one normally knows is very limited, it is only for a few people, and one wonders whether there is an affection that is not limited.
1:15 K: What makes us not think together? Say for instance, I want to go and demonstrate. I am not peaceful, because to be at peace with oneself and with the world requires an extraordinary sense of intelligence and a way of life, actually daily living – but I am not all that, but I want to demonstrate against the nuclear business. Would you all agree to that?
2:16 Frank Archer: To what, Krishnaji?
2:20 RM: To your going and demonstrating.
2:23 K: I want to demonstrate. Would you all agree to that?
2:33 JH: I don't think so.
2:36 K: I am just thinking together – I want to find out what it means to think together. I know what it means to me. I want to find out what you mean by thinking together. To think together.
3:07 Brian Jenkins: Krishnaji, obviously I can't stop you if you want to go.
3:12 K: No, I took that as an example. Do you and I see the importance of demonstration, or writing letters to the newspapers – which comes to the same thing only this is more vocal, more demonstrative? If 250,000 people wrote letters to the newspapers every day it would have as much effect as demonstration.
3:55 BJ: Probably better.
3:56 Mary Zimbalist: Sorry to bust in. David or Baruch, the plumber thinks there is a broken pipe in what looks like my bathroom. I am awfully sorry to pluck you out.
4:17 K: Or take something else – all right – when we all met on Sunday, one of the students said, cynically, Oh, they never live up to what you are talking about. Now, you must have heard all that. What is the cause of that statement?
4:51 Shakuntala Narayan: Who never live up? We the staff? They are talking about the staff?
4:57 K: Yes. Oh, they talk about it but they never live up to it. What is the cause of that? Could we agree to the cause?
5:13 RM: The cause of their saying so? The cause of their saying that?
5:17 K: Yes. The cause of their saying it.
5:22 RM: Yes. It seems to be that they see us acting in confusion.
5:27 K: So, do we all agree to that?
5:30 Many voices: Yes.
5:32 K: Yes?
5:34 FA: I am not sure Krishnaji. If it is an old student...
5:38 K: No, doesn't matter who. FA: I think it does.
5:41 SN: No, it doesn't. FA: It does. If it is a new student, I wonder whether it is something they carry from their past experience. They are saying, oh, they are not working together.
5:50 K: Or the old student has already corrupted the new one.
5:55 FA: That, yes. So it can either be a correct perception of how we are or they are thinking of something, remembering something that has happened in the past.

K: Yes.
6:05 SN: But it is a fact that they see that our behaviour is contradictory. It is a fact that they see that.
6:11 K: Now, do we all see that together?
6:17 FA: Is our behaviour contradictory?
6:19 SN: I think it is.
6:21 FA: What is contradictory?
6:23 SN: We think one thing and say one thing and do a third thing.
6:26 FA: What are these things then?
6:28 Jim Fowler: As members of staff of a Krishnamurti school we represent Krishnamurti's teaching, but are we being it? That is the contradiction.
6:40 K: We are going off immediately. Look, one of the students, doesn't matter for what reason, says, no, you are not – etc. Do we all want to find the cause of it? And if we do find the cause of it, are we all of one mind?
7:11 JF: I am sure we are all very concerned to find the cause of that.
7:19 SN: We are concerned to find the cause.
7:20 K: All right. I say one thing and do something else contrary to what I said. And the student listens to that and he says, you are a hypocrite to me. And I want to find out why I am a hypocrite. Why I say one thing, or think one thing and do another. Why? Help me, please, help me.
7:57 SN: But before this happens, when a student says to me...
8:01 K: I am saying me – forget the student.
8:04 SN: I become defensive. I immediately say, well, I am not like that.
8:10 K: What is the cause of all this?
8:13 JF: Krishnaji, I am sure none of us would deliberately and wilfully say one thing and do something else. Obviously we couldn't be aware of it. We are not aware of it by doing that. If we were aware of it we wouldn't do it.
8:28 K: So, the cause is unawareness?
8:31 JF: Yes.
8:33 K: Do we agree to that?
8:36 JH: I think another cause could be that...
8:40 K: You are a member of the staff?
8:44 Stephen Smith: Yes.
8:48 K: What were you saying, sir?
8:51 JH: Another cause could be that we have a model about...
8:58 K: Yes, we have a model, we have an idea this should be that way, and because I don't fit into it they say, you are a hypocrite.
9:08 JH: Yes.
9:16 K: Why am I a hypocrite? What is the cause of it?
9:30 JF: Surely, no one is going to be deliberately a hypocrite.
9:35 K: All right. We said we are not aware of it. Why?
9:45 SS: I think one has to look at the whole question. Is the remark first made a remark made in awareness or not? It may not have been, in which case it is no good. I think one of the difficulties is that, being very close and very open to criticism, people react, as Shaku said, somewhat defensively and from that they tend to react negatively and feel that they can't do any of this, and so it goes on.
10:18 K: So what shall we do?
10:25 SS: I think one has to meet that criticism at the moment when it arises. It may be a direct perception, in which case one should investigate it, it may not be a direct perception at all.
10:37 K: Sir, that statement has been made. How do we meet it?
10:44 SS: Well, it depends on the quality of the statement.
10:48 K: We said the quality... Donald Dennis: You heard it.
10:52 SS: Yes, I heard it but I am not convinced by it. I am not sure that it was a statement made in awareness. You can use the same words but unless it is coming out of something that is a perception then you might as well ignore it. Donald Dennis: Should our first step be to doubt the student's statement? Or to doubt ourselves?
11:20 SS: The first step is not to base what you are doing on statements.
11:25 FA: You have to go into it.
11:28 Scott Forbes: I am not so sure that we are so unaware when we do this. For instance, if we see the value of giving up opinions, of having no opinions, and yet we maintain them, we don't seem to really want to give them up.
11:47 K: Sir, we are trying to find out if it is possible to think together.
11:54 SF: Yes.
11:57 K: Forget this. Why can't we think together? What is preventing us? We have lived here for ten years, we have seen all the ups and downs and the difficulties, etc. Why can't we think together?
12:22 SF: Well, opinions seems to be one thing that prevent us.
12:25 K: What is the reason, sir? What is the cause of all this?
12:38 BJ: Well, Krishnaji, I think another thing is that we are all different personalities here, and therefore we have different perspectives on things. One looks at something in one way and another looks at something in a different way. Now, I don't see there is any problem in that as long as there is mutual listening. But I think our tendency is we get locked into looking at something in a particular way and then we don't move.
13:04 K: So what does that mean? I am locked. I am locked in my prejudice, in my conclusion and I won't move from it. Why?
13:29 BJ: Well, I think a lot of these prejudices that we have have a deeper base.
13:34 K: Go on, examine it and get rid of the damn thing.
13:39 BJ: I think it takes quite a lot of hard work and discussion with you, whether you like it or not, for us to become aware...

K: All right, let's do it.
14:01 BJ: One of the things I think that many of us get stuck in, and I think it is a difficult one, and that is that many of us have been here for quite a long time and I feel we are all serious in one way or another, and we have been trying to grapple with this problem and we get to a point where we think, well, I have been doing this for so many years, I am still the same person, I am still stuck there and therefore I am incapable.
14:34 K: I think the capacity doesn't come from that.
14:39 BJ: Well, I don't know where the capacity does come from.
14:41 K: Let's go step by step and wipe it out, each step, shall we?
14:46 BJ: Well, we can try.

K: Not try!
14:50 FA: Give it a chance. I was telling him to give it a chance.
14:55 BJ: All right. Yes.
14:57 Ingrid Porter: Is it a problem, or is the difficulty that whenever we meet, whether it is with you or whether it is just as a staff, or even with the students, it seems to me – I am not sure – that we don't inquire, we always make statements, positive statements in one way or another, and so you finish up with twenty different statements. They are all slightly different and we don't seem to know how to inquire into something together.
15:30 K: If that is so, let's try now. Why can't we think together? You say we are different personalities, different opinions, different judgements, different conclusions, we are stuck in a certain point, we won't let go. Is that so? Brian Jenkins makes that statement – I want to find out if it is so. Am I, or you, stuck? Or our judgements are so strong – not stuck – we are changing our judgements. We are changing our opinions, we are changing our conclusions, modifying it, but always holding on to those. Is that the reason? That we are incapable of thinking together of any problem, of any issue? Would you discuss with me?
17:18 SF: It seems to be that, sir. But why do we hold on to these things?
17:23 K: No, wait, first let us see if that is so.
17:27 JF: When you say thinking together, do you mean agreeing together?
17:36 K: No. Is that so, a fact?
17:40 JF: What?

K: A fact that I am stuck. Jenkins points out I am stuck in a particular conclusion, I won't let that go, I won't let go of my opinions, and therefore I am incapable of thinking together.
18:05 JF: Which means agreeing together?
18:07 K: No. Thinking is not agreeing. I can agree that is a microphone. Is agreement thinking together?
18:27 JF: I think that agreement is thinking together but the converse is not necessarily so. Thinking together is not necessarily agreeing.
18:33 K: No, we are talking of thinking together. Thinking.
18:39 IP: Isn't thinking together in the nature of inquiry, whereas agreement is arriving at a conclusion?
18:45 K: Yes. I agree that that is a green car. I agree the students are rather immature. You understand what I mean by thinking together?
19:10 RM: Is thinking together then looking at something together, exploring a subject together...
19:19 K: No.

RM: No?
19:24 BJ: Krishnaji, when we are talking in the staff meeting and we are talking about a student, and each staff member says something they feel about that student, which is accurate, then I would say that is thinking together. We don't agree but we are each looking from a different angle.
19:45 K: Say, there is the object, the object may be the student, and so on. We are not thinking together about the object. You understand?
20:04 BJ: Yes, but this seems to be going rather too far ahead.
20:06 K: No. But this is fairly simple, isn't it?
20:11 RM: So, it is a thinking together without...
20:15 K: Without the object. Thinking together about something, and thinking together is quite different – no?
20:26 DD: A different quality. So are you saying thinking together is a disposition.
20:39 K: Sir, thinking together implies a certain quality of affection, a certain quality of sensitivity, but if we think about something that is quite a different quality. No?
21:03 Wendy Smith: I think it is that, that we have been trained in. I think our training in thinking is to think about something and arrive at an conclusion, so you look at all the different things.
21:13 K: Yes. You have made that statement. Now, can you think with me or with all of us, without the object?
21:30 Raman Patel: Krishnaji, can you say that this thinking can occur when we have our own prejudices?
21:37 K: No, sir. You can't be thinking together if you hold on to opinion and I hold on to my opinion. I mean, it is childish.
21:53 RP: I say this because normally we tend to say that when we talk about a personality.
21:58 K: No, leave all that for the moment. I am trying to differentiate between thinking together – thinking – and not thinking together about something. Is this difficult? Is this impossible? Am I making a statement which has no meaning? Question me, doubt.
22:32 SS: I think it is a difficult meaning in a sense because it seems that thinking in a sense creates an object in its own process. Part of the process of thinking is to create objects, in a way. So, the normal starting point, it already begins with a conclusion, in a way. The kind of thinking you are talking about, talking about 'X', there is already a conclusion involved in it.
23:01 SN: It also seems to be very difficult to think without an object. How does one think without...
23:10 K: All right, let's think about the object. Think together about something. Think together why we hold on to our opinions, after all these years. Right? Now, let's think about that together. I am sure you have a lot of opinions. You have them and perhaps I have them. So each of us has many opinions and we hold on to them. Therefore, we can't think together. Right? Which indicates lack of affection.
24:27 David Schrum: Does that mean then that we may think together about an object as long as the object is not the important thing, but the together?
24:40 K: Yes. As long as the object is not important we can all think together. But the moment it comes very close to us... Now, please discuss, argue. Discuss with me.
25:04 WS: Krishnaji, I don't understand – when you say thinking together, How much thought is there in thinking together?
25:15 K: Look, you have got opinions, haven't you?

WS: Yes.
25:19 K: You have stuck to them, haven't you?

WS: Yes.
25:22 K: Why? Just a minute. We talked about this, holding on to opinions which are divisive, which create conflict, for the last five years or six years, and yet you hold on to them.
25:44 BJ: Yes, but she said just then, it is because she doesn't see that she has opinions.
25:50 WS: Sometimes. One of the problems of opinion is it seems right, and you don't know whether it is an opinion or not.
26:00 K: So, the difficulty you say, facts and opinion.
26:04 WS: Yes.

K: Now, what are facts?
26:09 WS: Something that you can observe.
26:11 K: No, facts. That is a tree, that is a fact. You are sitting there, that is a fact. I am sitting here – right? Facts are that which has happened before. Like I had an accident in a car, that is a fact – last week. Or the fact that we are sitting here, that is a fact. And opinion is something – yes, you know what opinions are, must I explain that? Are facts opinions?
26:59 WS: No, but it is sometimes difficult. It doesn't seem to work like that.
27:07 SS: There seems to be another area altogether. When we make a statement like, as we did: killing is wrong. Any form of taking of life is wrong – you see?
27:19 K: Don't go off to something, sir.
27:21 SS: No, but it is important, because this seems to be a false kind of simplification of what is going on.
27:29 DD: But that is one of the reasons probably why Krishnaji avoided making that statement. He said something that was a fact, that separation breeds conflict. Not that killing is wrong. There is a subtle but important difference.
27:44 K: Sir, you have an opinion and I have opinion. We were talking about that. We have talked about having opinions, which is divisive, for the last five years or more, and we still go on.
28:03 SS: Seemingly, yes.

K: Why? Knowing it is divisive, it brings conflict, why do we go on with it?
28:13 SS: Well, in some sense it is necessary to have an opinion for the time being.
28:16 K: No. Why should you have opinion for the time being?
28:24 SS: Because we have to select students, because we have to decide what is best for them.
28:28 K: No, there may be a different way of doing it!
28:31 SS: Yes, but you see, it doesn't seem to me – this perception may be wrong – but doesn't seem to me that it is all so terrible to have opinions, provided that the opinions are not something that you live by, that are deep-rooted.
28:46 K: Why do I have opinions at all?
28:48 SS: Well, we do have them.

K: Why?
28:54 WS: Krishnaji, isn't it to do with the nature of thinking, that opinions come about? That is why I don't understand about thinking together.
29:01 K: Please, wait a minute. Forget 'together'. Why do we have opinions?
29:09 WS: Well, isn't it in the nature of thought to come up with conclusions, which are opinions?
29:16 K: There may be a different way of inviting students or discarding students, without opinions. We stick to them and continue with them, we don't find a new way of doing it. I don't know, you keep on repeating the same thing year after year.
29:40 SS: Well, what is one to do about it?
29:43 K: Drop the blasted thing.
29:46 SF: But you seem to be suggesting that it is possible to operate without opinions.

K: Absolutely.
29:51 SF: And we seem to be suggesting that it is impossible.
29:54 K: Yes, there we are.
29:57 SF: Yes, now what is there that is not being seen? There seems to be something that is escaping our perception or our understanding. Why is this simple thing impossible to see?
30:16 K: Somebody says you can choose a student in a totally different way, not according to my prejudice or your appreciation or your opinion against mine – but we still go on that way.
30:35 SS: But we do change our opinions about people and we do it quite often, from the feeling about them.
30:41 K: You keep on repeating the damn thing!
30:43 SS: No, but I am trying to look at the process of what is going on. What you are talking about is to me some imaginary process that never happens. I am trying to talk about the process that actually goes on, what we actually do.
30:57 K: Actually goes on, we all know – you have a certain point of view, another has a certain point of view.
31:07 SS: And we exchange.
31:08 K: We exchange, we discuss, but at the end of it, whoever is the final authority chooses.
31:15 SS: Not the final authority.

K: No, all right.
31:19 K: I may disagree with all that you say, with all your choice of students, but I yield, but I stick to my point of view. Right?
31:35 SF: There seems to be another problem, Krishnaji. Even if we all decide to have the same opinion, and so we all agree, we are still operating out of opinion. So, it is still the exchange of opinion or the modification of opinion – it is still all within the field of opinions.
31:52 K: Would you agree, opinions divide?
31:58 RM: Obviously. SN: Yes, that is obvious.
32:01 SS: It is obvious that they divide, yes.
32:03 K: Now, what does that mean? A division, a process of conflict, modified, gentle, but it is conflict. Right?
32:23 K: But you don't even try something else, in all those years.
32:29 JH: I think, also, when we listen to something we immediately make a problem out of it.
32:34 K: Yes, sir.
32:36 SS: But how are you even to make the simplest statement, like the statement you made a few minutes ago: these students are immature.
32:43 K: Of course they are immature.
32:49 FA: Is that an opinion? IP: That is an observation.
32:52 K: That is not an opinion, it is so. IP: That is a fact.
32:55 RM: By definition a student is immature.
32:57 K: What is the matter with this?
33:00 IP: The matter seems to be that – it seems that quite some time ago we all agreed that opinions were divisive and we don't want them, but we don't seem to know what else to do.
33:12 Baruch Livneh: How would you select a student in a different way?
33:18 K: I will tell you, but first...
33:22 BL: A student misbehaves and might have to leave the school, how do you decide?
33:28 K: Sir, that can only take place if we drop opinions.
33:33 FA: Yes.
33:36 DD: Maybe we haven't put our fingers on the difference in quality between an observation and a conclusion that we get without looking. The one allows the possibility of cooperation, the other just breeds division.
33:57 SS: Well, there seems to be observation going on as well, I would say.
34:03 JH: Also, we are so full of opinions that whenever we listen we make a problem so we never really see it.
34:11 Doris Pratt: You say we are full of opinions. Are we anything else but our opinions?
34:17 SN: So why is it that we have gone into this question for five years at least?
34:22 K: And you are still there. SN: Over and over again
34:25 SN: and I think most of us see it as a fact that we have opinions.
34:33 John Porter: Why not change the name of opinion and say guessing? Which is what you are doing when you don't know. Is it guessing? You only have an opinion when you don't know about anything. So you offer an opinion about it, which is guessing. It comes from the world of fantasy, it is part of our dreams.
35:00 DS: Sir, would it be helpful to talk about the way we listen to what we say ourselves, and the way we listen to what others say – to talk about listening?
35:18 K: I have nothing more to say.
35:22 Christina West: But maybe we could look at the difficulty which Brian was bringing up, because on Sunday we were talking about learning, we were learning about something.
35:32 K: You are not learning, you are sticking.
35:36 CW: I know – perhaps one thing we could question is, when we say this is terribly difficult to do this, are we just using our experience? Perhaps when we say that it is actually an opinion that it is very difficult, maybe we don't know what it is because we haven't tried it. And when we say it is difficult we get stuck.
35:55 K: Just now, he made a statement, he quoted me, that the students are immature. That is a fact.
36:07 SS: It is a measure also.

K: No, it is a fact.
36:10 SS: No. What are you measuring it against? They are immature if measured against older people, perhaps, in a certain sense.
36:19 K: I give up.
36:21 JF: Not necessarily. Some people might say we are immature.
36:24 SS: Yes, we might be immature but that is a form of measure also, and what are you measuring this immaturity against? It is not an absolute fact.
36:34 K: Then we have to discuss what is maturity. Right?

SS: Quite.
36:42 K: I will tell you what is maturity, but that doesn't lead anywhere.
36:48 DD: Very few statements are going to stand up to complete analysis of every word used.
36:54 RM: But if we listen without our opinions then we will understand what the person means when the word immaturity is used. So if we listen without our opinions, then it is clear how the word is being used.
37:08 DD: Yes.
37:12 BJ: Krishnaji, supposing you said a Mercedes is the best car in the world – is that an opinion?
37:19 K: Yes.
37:21 FA: We have been through this one before.
37:22 BJ: Well, I want to get it, because this is what Steve is saying.
37:25 K: Just a minute.
37:27 BJ: But then what is wrong with your saying that?
37:29 K: No, wait. I talk to, say for instance, half a dozen people who own Rolls-Royces – I don't know any! – and lots of people who own Mercedes. Both are good engineers, and these engineers – I have heard several of them discuss this, as a matter of fact – they say Mercedes engineering is far better than the Rolls-Royce. They say that. I know nothing about engineering. So, I say perhaps it is. Because these people who are experts in engineering, in building cars, say, Mercedes is the best. I say it is the better. And you come around and say, no, sorry, Porsche is the best. I say, all right. I don't stick to it.
38:44 BJ: But Steve said earlier that if you state an opinion – you say Mercedes is best – and then you put it into the melting pot, and then you let it go. Say I talk to you. I say, look, I have spoken to this engineer, this engineer, this engineer, and they all say that Porsche has a better gearbox.
39:03 K: All right.
39:07 BJ: But then in that case, what Steve is saying – and I agree with him – that to have an opinion but to drop the opinion. To be able to have an opinion and listen to what other people say.
39:15 K: Yes, I don't care – I am not buying any car – I don't care. All right.
39:23 DD: Sir, is it dangerous to have opinions held lightly? You were saying before that we shouldn't have opinions at all.
39:32 BJ: Because you said, why have opinions at all.
39:34 K: I am questioning. That is what I am asking. You haven't answered my question.
39:39 BJ: Well, I asked you: why have an opinion about Mercedes?
39:41 K: I have no opinion of Mercedes or Rolls-Royce.
39:45 BJ: But you said just now.

K: Yes, I said that, but I am saying I am totally indifferent to it.
39:51 SN: I think it is the quality of a statement rather than whether it is an opinion or not. I mean, if Krishnaji says, the students are immature...
40:03 K: But it is a fact.
40:05 SN: He is not sticking by it and he is not going to fight about it.
40:09 K: I give up. So, what is our difficulty?
40:17 SN: I think the difficulty is quite obvious. We sort of stick by our statements, which turn into an opinion. We make a statement and it becomes an opinion and we stick by it.
40:29 SS: Well, that is not what we has been said before. I would tend to agree with you but that is not what is been said. It seems to be being said that any statement, almost, is a form of opinion and therefore...
40:41 JH: But you see, we have been talking 45 minutes, and it seems that the 45 minutes have been opinions in action.
40:48 K: Yes, sir, this happens. I know this.
40:51 BJ: But Shakuntala just said that it is the quality, in a way, the way you are holding that opinion.
40:59 SN: It isn't an opinion then. If the quality is there then it isn't an opinion.
41:03 BJ: Well, we don't want to just argue about words, I feel.
41:08 DP: But are we anything but our opinions?
41:10 BJ: Are we agreed that it is a question of the quality?
41:15 JH: But why should we make a problem of something that might be very simple? I make a statement and then you come and make a problem out of it – why is that?
41:39 DS: Is the difficulty that we identify with certain things that we say, simply? That we identify with certain things that we say? We see things, we feel that we understand something. We make a statement. Now, do I identify with that statement?
42:06 K: Could we approach this question differently? Can one's brain be free – be free – instead of whirling around like this, as we are doing? I am just asking, I am not saying it can, cannot. And if you are free, Mr Jenkins makes a statement, doesn't matter, about something or other, will I listen out of that freedom? You understand what I mean? Don't make a problem of it. You are free. Your mind, for a few minutes it is quiet, and I make a statement, and will you listen to that statement in that quality of brain which is quiet? Right? Will you?
43:53 DD: Yes.
43:56 K: Right. What happens then? See what happens.
44:02 JH: I move very quickly.

K: Yes.
44:06 DD: And there is contact between you two.
44:09 K: Do it, sir. You are free, for the moment, I hope. DD: Yes.
44:18 K: And then I make a statement that we all must think together. Which is an extraordinary phenomenon. How do you receive that statement? Just watch it, sir. Watch it for a minute. Then from your freedom you begin to inquire into this statement. Inquiring means that there must be freedom to penetrate. Right? Will you do that? You understand my question? JH: Yes, I understand.
45:34 K: Why can't we do that?
45:39 JH: Well, I would say that...
45:41 K: Keep it simple – why can't we do it? See what actually takes place when you are free, not rattling around saying, you are right, you are wrong, why shouldn't I have opinions, why should I have opinions – just for a few minutes free. And he makes a statement, let's think together. How do you approach that question from that freedom?
46:17 JH: I would think there is immediate understanding and energy.
46:21 K: Which means what? Do you understand my question? Can we do this?
46:50 DD: It seems to involve both a setting aside of any conclusions I might have, but also...
46:56 K: Just be free for a few minutes.
46:58 DD: It is a dropping of barriers.

K: No, don't complicate it.
47:23 K: Well, sir? Now, I may be making a wrong statement – don't jump on the statement. You are free, for the moment. I say to you, the older students – I may be wrong – are making the newcomers follow their old pattern. You understand? Making the newcomers follow the pattern which they have set. And I would like you to prevent that. How do you respond to that? Do you understand, sir?
48:39 SS: Yes.
48:41 K: How do you respond to it?

SS: I want to do it too.
48:45 K: No. You are free for the moment, and I make that statement. Do we, all of us, want to do it? Or you want to do it your way, and so on. You see the difference?
49:22 JH: Well, it seems very simple.
49:23 K: That is all, sir! That is all I am saying. Jenkins, what do you say to that? You understand? You are for a few minutes quiet, no thought, just quiet, I come along and make a statement about the students. What happens? You say, yes, we must do this together. Right? So, can we all be free for that... I don't know if you understand what I mean.
50:26 BJ: Yes. That we are all free to listen.
50:28 K: That is all.
50:36 JH: There is no place for discussion.
50:39 K: No, you have already acted, you are acting.
50:42 JH: Yes.
50:54 JF: Sir, that does presuppose that we are all quiet, when you say that.
51:03 K: I don't know. I am asking if you are quiet. I don't know if you are quiet. Who am I to judge anybody? I say, look, there may be a different way of dealing with the whole thing. Approach the problem from freedom. If I say to my wife, I love you, let's do things together – there is no problem. Right? She doesn't say, no... Is that what is lacking? My wife and I are responsible to keep the house clean. I like her and she likes me – affectionate, we love each other. Where is the problem? What do you say to this? What do you say to this, sir?
53:10 WS: It is difficult to say anything, Krishnaji.
53:16 K: No. Do we have such affection here? Let's forget about the Mercedes, Rolls-Royce, opinions, etc. Do we have this feeling?
53:48 JH: No, we have it only for a few.

K: With me?
53:51 JH: No, only for a few, for some people.
53:54 K: No. We are all responsible for those students, not you and I are alone. We are all responsible for those students. That responsibility demands that we act together. Right? To act together there must be a certain affection between us, a certain quality of trusting each other. If I love my wife I trust her. And if she says, I am going off with another man, then that is a different matter. Do you know the Italian proverb?
54:44 BL: Which one?
54:46 K: Fidarsi è bene, meglio non fidarsi.
54:54 BL: Can you translate it?

K: Which means: Good to trust, but better not to trust. Sorry, that is a joke.
55:10 JF: Krishnaji, are you asking us to love together or to think together?
55:20 K: When there is affection, love, you think together. My wife and I who have lived together, all kinds of trouble, sex and all that, we love each other and therefore there is no problem. I don't say, it is my opinion, she says... I say, let's talk together, let's get it over. Is that the problem? Now, if you have that affection, love, how would you choose a student? Or discard a student? You will have quite a different... I don't know if you follow all this.
56:52 DD: These things would be easy.
56:54 K: Yes, sir. I am not putting a blanket over all of you not to think, but I am just asking: why do we have these terrible divisions? We have been in this house for so many years and yet there is a great deal of division amongst ourselves. Right? IP: Yes.
58:10 K: Would you agree to that?
58:13 FA: It is news to me. I didn't know there was such division.
58:21 K: All right. They say yes, you may say no. You don't know. FA: I don't know.
58:33 K: So, there it is. You don't know, they know. There is division.
58:44 K: Look at it, it is a division.
58:49 FA: Well, I don't feel it is a division.
58:51 K: It doesn't matter. I know, you don't know. I am the guru and you are not the guru. It makes a division. FA: Yes, that is a division.
59:04 K: So, let's put it round the other way – there is certain division amongst us all.
59:14 FA: I am surprised. I don't feel this.
59:17 K: All right, sir.
59:19 FA: Maybe you are correct, maybe there is division.
59:23 IP: Would you agree, Frank, that there is a lack of affection amongst us all?
59:30 FA: I wouldn't make such a statement, no.
59:32 JF: Frank, if somebody asked you to come and have a chat and you never had one before, and you keep putting it off and putting it off, isn't that division?
59:41 FA: No. JF: No?
59:46 K: You are a lucky chap.
59:56 IP: But the person who keeps asking you thinks it is division, so how do you meet?
1:00:01 FA: Well, I can tell you, I am quite busy, I will try to come and see you.
1:00:07 JF: That is not the point. We are talking about division.
1:00:12 K: I am busy, I don't see you.
1:00:15 FA: No. We have been trying to meet together some time.
1:00:18 K: Yes, I was only joking. Can we have, all of us, this affection? Right? Then there is no problem.
1:01:01 WS: I don't feel I can say anything, because if we say something now we are just going to get into a tangle.
1:01:07 K: No. Have you got that affection? You can question. We talked about, the other day, the art of questioning. Have I?
1:01:23 WS: I know often I don't, because I am too concerned with myself.
1:01:30 K: So, that may be one of our difficulties, perhaps the major difficulty. Sometimes I have, sometimes I haven't. The sometimes is when we all meet.
1:01:51 IP: But even when we don't all meet, Can we find out why we haven't got it? Because obviously we do trust some people more than others, and why should that be so? We can be very frank and open and lay ourselves open to one person and not to another.
1:02:13 K: Affection is affection, it is not: I love my wife and I hate everybody else.
1:02:20 IP: That is true, Krishnaji, but why is it that – just to pull a name out of a hat – I could say something about myself to Raman, say, and I would feel nervous to say it to Steven or Frank because I don't trust them to...
1:02:37 K: I may talk to Mrs D most carefully, I may not talk to him. I am sorry, I am just making an example. But what is wrong with it? As long as I have this affection. You see, you are making it all so difficult!
1:02:57 JH: Yes.
1:02:58 SN: Sir, but you are really talking about... I think we have a sort of affection but we really have a limit, and you are talking about an affection which is quite different, and really can't be cultivated.
1:03:14 K: Affection. If you have affection, it is not limited.
1:03:18 SN: Yes, that is what I mean. We are saying that you are talking about a different kind of affection from...
1:03:29 K: Look, Shakuntalaji, if you have affection and I have affection – you know, the quality of it – and a student comes to us. You have to discard or accept. What happens then between us?
1:03:55 SN: Something quite different happens.
1:03:57 K: Do it, show it. If all of us had that affection and a student comes, etc., what is our relationship? Is this all new? Or we are affectionate but we have not given enough time for it to flower, because we are crowded by our problems, questions – you follow what I mean?
1:05:15 WS: I think that is probably more it, and I don't think anybody in here is not affectionate.
1:05:21 K: Then why don't we find time? Or does it require time?
1:05:35 JH: Well, if it requires time, it would be limited.
1:06:04 K: May I ask a question? The older students are influencing the younger, new students, either bad or good – I am just saying – how do you prevent this?
1:06:34 JF: I think there is less of that this year than any other year I have seen. This is happening less this year than any other year I have seen. And it appears to me that one of the factors in it, is that staff is spending much more time with the students this year than previous years.

K: Oh.
1:06:58 DD: And also because the new students have so much energy of their own, the old students don't know quite what to make of it.
1:07:07 BJ: But I think it is happening Krishnaji. I agree with you.
1:07:14 Kathy Forbes: I saw a certain thing that was happening with some newer students.
1:07:19 K: How do you prevent this happening?
1:07:22 KF: Well, I mentioned it to an older student, and he was surprised, and he saw it. It hadn't occurred to him that this was what he was doing.
1:07:37 K: Some of the new students are extraordinarily bright, most friendly, laugh, joke and it is going to gradually...
1:07:48 FA: Is it going to, gradually?
1:07:52 K: Unless we do something, it would. Right?
1:07:58 SN: But it is really up to us as the staff,
1:08:01 SN: not up to the students.

K: That is what I am asking.
1:08:04 JF: You see, the more time they spend by themselves, the more likely that they are going to talk between themselves on that, and it will generate. But the more time we are with them and sharing everything with them, the less likely that that is to happen.
1:08:40 K: We would be an extraordinary body of people if this kind of quality existed. I have been to many monasteries. I have met many, many, many monks. European monasteries where the abbot rules, get up at two o'clock in the morning – I have done part of that – and prayers – you follow? And the affection has gone long ago, out of the window. They love Jesus. Can we all do this thing together? Can we all have such affection – you follow? Then there is no problem.
1:10:18 FA: Without it, we will also influence the new students as the older students are doing.
1:10:23 K: Yes, sir. The whole thing will change. If I may most respectfully beg of you to keep this thing. You see, it has never happened before, if you can do this with a whole group of people. Right?
1:12:09 FA: Krishnaji, when you say this has never happened before, do you really think so, this has never happened?
1:12:16 K: Yes, sir.
1:12:21 FA: Why do you say this?
1:12:23 K: Historically, there are many teachers, religious teachers – right? They had disciples. They worship the teacher. Right? They had affection for him, adored him, devoted to him, did whatever he wanted. This is historical. FA: Yes.
1:12:57 K: But the moment he died they began to quarrel.
1:13:05 FA: And so, what you are asking is can a group of people, non-dependent on one person, work together?
1:13:16 K: Affection means there is no authority. Right? Affection. You are not more affectionate than me, and therefore you don't become the authority. Affection. A kind of trust, a kind of love. For a group without a leader, without somebody on top of them to tell them, you must love. The other day, in America, there were thirteen channels on television. Thirteen. You can choose whatever you want. And channel ten is a religious channel. And one of the evangelists, who was most extraordinary – I won't go into all that – he said, we must love Jesus. Give your heart to Jesus. Welcome and hold him in your heart. And this is repeated ad nauseam for thousands and millions of people, day after day, day after day. Right? And they are ready to kill each other. One is a Baptist, one is... So, sir, that is why I say it has never happened before. In a family there is always dissension. You must know, sir. I mean, it is common. And there has never been real affection in that family. Right? If I have this family, all of you, I say, please, don't quarrel, let's be happy together. Well, I have said enough.
1:17:00 FA: It is past one o'clock, shall we meet the students?
1:17:03 K: It is up to you.
1:17:17 DD: It might be best for the students. They will be waiting.

K: C'est à vous! Fidarsi è bene, non fidarsi è meglio.