Krishnamurti_EN

Krishnamurti Subtitles

Authority is destructive

Claremont - 15 November 1968

Conversation with Huston Smith

1:00	S: I am Huston Smith,
	professor of philosophy

1:04	at the Massachusetts
	Institute of Technology,

1:07	and I invite you to a conversation

1:10	arranged by the Blaisdell Institute
	of Claremont, California,

1:14	with Krishnamurti,
	who was raised by Annie Besant

1:18	and the Theosophists
	to be a World Teacher,

1:22	and who, though he discarded
	the mantle of Theosophy,

1:25	did indeed become
	a sage of our century,

1:29	one whose voice is heard
	as much by the youth of today

1:32	as throughout the world
	for the last sixty years.

1:38	Krishnamurti, maybe this morning
	I will have only one question

1:43	which in one way or another I will
	be coming back to in various ways.

1:49	In your writings, in your speaking,
	time and again

1:53	you come back to this wonderful
	little word, ‘lucid and lucidity’,

2:01	but is it possible, living as we are
	in this confused and confusing world,

2:07	torn by conflicting voices without

2:11	and conflicting passions within,

2:15	with hearts that seem star-crossed
	and tensions that never go,

2:21	is it possible in such a life,
	in such a world,

2:24	to live with total lucidity?
	And if so, how?

2:33	K: I wonder, sir,
	what you mean by that word ‘lucid’.

2:41	I wonder
	whether you mean clarity.

2:49	S: That's what first
	comes to mind, yes.

2:54	K: Is this clarity a matter
	of intellectual perception,

3:04	or is it a perception
	with your whole being,

3:10	not merely
	a fragment of your being,

3:14	but with the totality
	of one’s whole being?

3:18	S: It certainly has the ring
	of the latter, it’s the latter.

3:21	K: So it is not fragmentary,

3:23	therefore it is not intellectual
	or emotional, or sentimental.

3:30	And so is it possible in this confused
	world, with so many contradictions,

3:40	and such misery and starvation,
	not only outwardly, but also inwardly,

3:47	such insufficiency,
	psychologically

3:51	– outwardly there are
	so many rich societies –

3:57	is it at all possible for a human
	being living in this world

4:03	to find within himself
	a clarity that is constant,

4:15	that is true in the sense
	not contradictory,

4:25	is it possible for a human being
	to find it?

4:28	S: That’s my question.
	K: Your question.

4:30	I don’t see why not.

4:33	I don’t see why it shouldn’t
	be found by anybody

4:40	who is really quite serious.

4:43	Most of us are not serious at all.

4:47	We want to be entertained,
	we want to be told what to do,

4:53	we want someone else to tell us
	how to live, what this clarity is,

5:01	what is truth, what is God, what
	is righteous behaviour and so on.

5:06	Now if one could discard
	completely

5:12	all the authority
	of psychological specialists,

5:22	as well as the specialists
	in religion,

5:27	if one could really deeply negate
	all authority of that kind,

5:37	then one would be relying
	totally on oneself.

5:46	S: Well,
	I feel I may be right off,

5:49	I am contradicting
	what you are suggesting

5:51	because my impulse
	after you have said

5:54	that it seems to you that it is
	possible to achieve this lucidity,

5:58	my impulse is to ask you
	immediately, how?

6:02	K: Wait, sir.

6:04	S: But you say, am I looking
	to authority if I do that?

6:07	K: No, no. What is necessary is the
	freedom from authority, not the ‘how’.

6:16	The ‘how’ implies a method,
	a system,

6:20	a way trodden by others,

6:26	and someone to tell you,
	'Do this and you will find it.'

6:32	S: Now, are you saying with this

6:34	that it is an inappropriate question
	to ask you

6:37	how this lucidity
	is to be achieved?

6:40	K: Not at all, but the ‘how’
	implies that: a method, a system.

6:50	And the moment you have a system
	and a method, you become mechanical,

6:54	you just do what you are told.

6:57	And that’s not clarity.

7:01	It is like a child
	being told by its mother

7:04	what it should do
	from morning until night.

7:07	And therefore it becomes
	dependent on the mother,

7:10	or the father, whatever it be,
	and there is no clarity.

7:15	So to have clarity,
	the first essential thing is freedom

7:25	– freedom from authority.

7:29	S: And I feel in a kind of bind,

7:32	because this freedom is attractive
	too and I want to go towards that,

7:37	but I also want to pick your mind
	and ask you how to proceed?

7:43	Am I moving away from my freedom
	if I ask you how to proceed?

7:49	K: No, sir, but I am pointing out
	the difficulty of that word,

7:57	the implication of that word,
	the ‘how’.

8:02	Not whether one is wandering
	away from freedom,

8:07	or any other thing of that kind,

8:11	but the word ‘how’ implies
	intrinsically a mind that says,

8:20	'Please tell me what to do.'

8:24	S: And I ask again, is that a mistaken
	question, is that a wrong question?

8:30	K: I should think that’s
	a wrong question, the ‘how’.

8:34	But rather if you say,
	what are the things,

8:40	the obstructions that prevent clarity,
	then we can go into it.

8:45	But if you say, right from
	the beginning, what is the method

8:51	– there have been a dozen methods
	and they have all failed,

8:57	they have not produced
	clarity, or enlightenment,

9:01	or a state of peace in man.

9:04	On the contrary, these methods
	have divided man:

9:08	you have your method,
	and somebody else has his method,

9:11	and these methods are everlastingly
	quarrelling with each other.

9:17	S: Are you saying that once
	you abstract certain principles

9:21	and formulate them into a method,

9:24	this becomes too crude
	to meet the intricacies...

9:28	K: That’s right, the intricacies,

9:29	and the complexities
	and the living quality of clarity.

9:34	S: So that the ‘how’ must
	always be immediate,

9:37	from where one stands,
	the particular or the general.

9:41	K: I would never
	put the ‘how’ at all.

9:43	The ‘how’ should never
	enter into the mind.

9:46	S: Well, this is a hard teaching.

9:48	It may be true and
	I am reaching for it,

9:51	and yet I don’t know
	that it’s possible

9:53	– I don’t feel that
	it’s possible completely

9:56	to relinquish the question
	how and everything.

9:59	K: Sir, I think we shall be able
	to understand each other

10:04	if we could go a little slowly,
	not into the ‘how’,

10:08	but what are the things
	that prevent clarity.

10:15	S: All right, fine.

10:16	K: Through negation,
	through negation come to clarity,

10:21	not through the positive method
	of following a system.

10:26	S: Fine. All right. This is
	the 'Via Negativa', that is good.

10:33	K: I think that is the only way.

10:35	The positive way of the ‘how’
	has lead man to divide himself,

10:43	his loyalties, his pursuits,
	you have the ‘how’ of yours,

10:49	and the ‘how’ of somebody else,

10:51	and the method of this
	– and they are all lost.

10:54	S: Fine.

10:55	K: So if we could
	put aside that question,

10:58	‘the how’ for the time being,

11:00	– and probably you will never
	put it, afterwards.

11:03	And I hope you won’t.
	S: Well, we’ll see.

11:08	K: So what is important
	is to find out

11:18	what are the obstructions,
	the hindrances, the blocks

11:24	that prevent clear perception
	of human anxiety, fear, sorrow,

11:36	and the ache of loneliness,
	the utter lack of love and all that.

11:42	S: Let’s explore
	the virtues of the negative.

11:45	What are these obstacles?
	K: Now, first of all, I feel,

11:53	there must be freedom.

11:57	Freedom from authority.

12:00	S: Could we stop right there
	on this matter of authority ?

12:03	When you say we should
	renounce all authority,

12:07	it seems to me that
	the goal of total freedom

12:11	and self-reliance is a valid one,

12:14	and yet along the way it seems to me
	that we rely, and should rely,

12:19	on all kinds of authorities
	in certain spheres.

12:23	When I go to a new territory

12:25	and I stop to ask the filling station
	attendant which way to go,

12:29	I accept his authority as he knows
	more about that than I do.

12:34	Isn’t this...
	K: Obviously, sir,

12:38	the specialist knows a little more
	than the layman,

12:43	the experts, whether in surgery
	or in technological knowledge,

12:51	obviously they know much more
	than any other person

12:55	who is not concerned
	with that particular technique.

12:59	But we are considering not authority
	along any particular line,

13:07	but the whole problem of authority.

13:11	S: And in that area is the answer
	to understand the areas

13:17	in which there is
	specialised authority,

13:21	which we should accept, and where...
	K: And where authority is detrimental,

13:25	authority is destructive.

13:27	So there are two problems involved
	in this question of authority:

13:34	there is not only
	the authority of the expert

13:37	– let’s call him for the moment –
	which is necessary,

13:41	but also the authority
	of the man who says,

13:47	'Psychologically I know, you don’t.'
	S: I see.

13:52	K: 'This is true, this is false',

13:54	'You must do this,
	and you must not do that.'

13:57	S: So one should never
	turn over one’s life to...

14:02	K: To anybody.
	S:...to anyone else.

14:05	K: Because the churches throughout
	the world, the different religions,

14:12	have said, 'Give your life to us,

14:14	we will direct, we’ll shape it,
	we will tell you what to do.

14:18	Do this, follow the saviour, follow
	the church and you will have peace.'

14:25	But, on the contrary, churches
	have produced terrible wars.

14:31	Religions of every kind have brought
	about fragmentation of the mind.

14:38	So the question is not freedom
	from a particular authority,

14:45	but the whole conceptual
	acceptance of authority.

14:50	S: Yes. All right.
	I think I see that

14:53	and one should never abdicate
	one’s own conscience.

14:57	K: No, I am not talking
	of conscience.

14:59	Our conscience is such
	a petty little affair.

15:03	S: I am thinking about the conscience
	of how I should live my life.

15:10	K: No, we started out to say,
	asking the question,

15:14	why is it man, who has lived
	for two million years and more,

15:20	why is man not capable
	of clear perception and action?

15:26	That is the question involved.
	S: Right.

15:28	And your first point is that

15:30	it is because he doesn’t accept
	the full responsibility...

15:34	K: I don’t say that.
	No, I haven’t come to that point yet.

15:39	I am saying that, as we said, we must
	approach this problem negatively.

15:48	Which means I must find out
	what are the blockages.

15:54	S: Obstacles.
	K: Obstacles

15:56	which prevent clear perception.
	S: Right.

16:01	K: Now one of the major
	blocks, or hindrances,

16:06	is this total acceptance
	of authority.

16:09	S: All right.
	So be ye lamps unto yourself.

16:12	K: That’s right.
	So you must be a light to yourself.

16:15	S: Very good.
	K: And to be a light to yourself

16:18	you must deny every other light,
	however great that light be,

16:24	whether it be the light
	of the Buddha, or X Y Z.

16:28	S: Perhaps,
	accept it here or there

16:32	but nevertheless you retain the say-so
	as to where an insight might be valid.

16:39	K: No, no sir. No, no.
	S : You would never accept...

16:42	K: My own authority?
	What authority have I?

16:45	My authority is
	the authority of the society.

16:49	I am conditioned
	to accept authority:

16:51	when I reject the authority
	of the outer,

16:53	I accept the authority of the inner.

16:57	And my authority of the inner
	is the result of the conditioning

17:01	in which I have been brought up.

17:05	S: All right.
	I thought I had this in place.

17:07	And I guess perhaps I still do.

17:10	The only point that I am not
	quite sure about at this point is,

17:16	it seems to me
	while assuming, accepting,

17:20	affirming and maintaining
	one’s own freedom...

17:25	K: Ah, you can’t.

17:27	Sir, how can a prisoner, except
	ideologically, or theoretically,

17:35	accept he is free?

17:37	He is in prison, and that is the fact
	from which we must move.

17:43	Not accept a vague fantastic
	ideological freedom

17:48	which doesn’t exist.

17:51	What exists is that man has bowed
	to this total authority.

17:58	S: All right. And this is the first
	thing we must see and remove.

18:05	K: Absolutely. Completely that
	must go, for a man that is serious,

18:08	and wants to find out the truth,
	or see things very clearly.

18:17	That is one of the major points.

18:22	And the demand of freedom,
	not only from authority,

18:29	but from fear,
	which makes him accept authority.

18:37	S: Right. That seems true also.

18:41	And so beneath the craving
	for authority is...

18:44	K:...is fear.
	S:...is fear

18:46	which we look to authority
	to be free from.

18:48	K: That’s right.
	So the fear makes man violent,

18:54	not only territorial violence,

18:56	but sexual violence and
	different forms of violence.

19:01	S: All right.

19:04	K: So the freedom from authority
	implies the freedom from fear.

19:09	And the freedom from fear implies the
	cessation of every form of violence.

19:19	S: If we stop violence
	then our fear recedes?

19:25	K: Ah, no sir. It’s not a question
	of recession of fear.

19:31	Let’s put it round
	the other way, sir.

19:35	Man is violent,
	linguistically, psychologically,

19:43	in daily life he is violent,
	which ultimately leads to war.

19:49	S: There’s a lot of it around.

19:52	K: And man has accepted war
	as the way of life,

19:57	whether in the office, or at home,
	or in the playing field,

20:01	or anywhere, he has
	accepted war as a way of life,

20:05	which is the very
	essence of violence.

20:09	S: Yes.

20:11	K: And aggression
	and all that is involved.

20:15	So as long as man accepts violence,
	lives a way of life which is violent,

20:24	he perpetuates fear and therefore
	violence and also accepts authority.

20:31	S: So these three
	are a kind of vicious circle,

20:34	each playing into the other.
	All right.

20:37	K: And the churches say,
	live peacefully,

20:40	be kind, love your neighbour,

20:43	which is all sheer nonsense.
	They don’t mean it.

20:48	It is merely a verbal assertion

20:54	that has no meaning at all.

20:57	It is just an idea
	because the morality of society

21:02	– which is the morality
	of the church – is immoral.

21:07	S: As we try
	to see then these things

21:10	that stand between us
	and lucidity and freedom,

21:13	we find authority
	and fear and violence

21:18	working together to obstruct us.

21:23	Where do we go from there?

21:29	K: It’s not going to some place, sir,

21:32	but understanding this fact

21:35	that most of us live a life
	in this ambience,

21:44	in this cage of authority,
	fear and violence.

21:52	We can’t go beyond it,
	unless one is free from it,

21:58	not intellectually or theoretically,

22:01	but actually be free
	from every form of authority,

22:08	– not the authority of the expert

22:11	but the feeling of dependence
	on authority.

22:17	S: All right.

22:19	K: Then, is it possible for a human
	being to be free completely of fear?

22:29	Not only at the superficial level
	of one’s consciousness,

22:33	but also at the deeper level,
	what is called the unconscious.

22:39	S: Is it possible?
	K: That’s the question,

22:41	otherwise you are bound
	to accept authority. Of anybody.

22:46	Any Tom, Dick and Harry,
	with a little bit of knowledge,

22:49	little bit of cunning explanation
	or intellectual formulas,

22:54	you are bound to fall for him.

22:57	But the question
	whether a human being,

23:02	so heavily conditioned as he is,

23:05	through propaganda of the church,

23:06	through propaganda of society,
	morality and all the rest of it,

23:10	whether such a human being
	can really be free from fear.

23:16	That is the basic question, sir.

23:18	S: That’s what I wait to hear.

23:22	K: I say it is possible,
	not in abstraction,

23:26	but actually it is possible.

23:30	S: All right. And my impulse again
	is to say, how.

23:33	K: Refrain. You see, when you say,
	how, you stop to learn.

23:42	You cease to learn.

23:44	S: All right, let’s just forget
	that I said that

23:48	because I don’t want
	to get distracted.

23:50	K: No, no, you can never
	even ask that, ever,

23:53	because we are learning:

23:56	learning about the nature
	and the structure of human fear,

24:01	at the deepest level and also
	at the most superficial level,

24:06	and we are learning about it.

24:08	And when you are learning
	you can’t ask suddenly,

24:12	how am I to learn.

24:16	There is no ‘how’
	if you are interested,

24:17	if the problem is vital,
	intense,

24:20	it has to be solved
	to live peacefully.

24:26	Then there is no ‘’how’,
	you say, let’s learn about it.

24:30	The moment you bring in
	the ‘how’ you move away

24:33	from the central fact of learning.

24:38	S: All right, that’s fine.

24:40	Let’s continue on the path
	of learning about this.

24:45	K: Learning.
	So, what does it mean to learn?

24:52	S: Are you asking me?
	K: Yes. Obviously.

24:55	What does it mean to learn?

25:00	S: It means to perceive how one
	should proceed in a given domain.

25:10	K: No, sir, surely.

25:13	Here is a problem of fear.
	I want to learn about it.

25:17	First of all I mustn’t condemn it,

25:21	I mustn’t say, ‘it’s terrible’,
	and run away from it.

25:26	S: It sounds to me that
	you have been condemning it

25:29	in one way or another.
	K: I don’t, I don’t, I want to learn.

25:32	When I want to learn
	about something I look

25:35	there is no condemnation at all.

25:39	S: Well, we were going at this
	through a negative route...

25:43	K: Which is what I am doing.

25:44	S: And fear is an obstacle...

25:47	K: About which I am going to learn.
	S: All right.

25:50	K: Therefore I can’t condemn it.

25:53	S: Well, it’s not good,
	you are not advocating it.

25:56	K: Ah, no.
	I am neither advocating or not.

25:58	Here is a fact of fear.
	I want to learn about it.

26:04	The moment I learn about
	something I am free of it.

26:09	So learning matters
	– what is implied in learning.

26:17	What is implied in learning?

26:20	First of all,
	to learn about something

26:23	there must be complete cessation
	of condemnation, or justification.

26:30	S: All right. Yes, I can see that.

26:33	If we are going
	to understand something

26:35	if we keep our emotions out of it,
	and just try to dispassionately to...

26:42	K: To learn.

26:45	You are introducing words like
	‘dispassion’, that’s unnecessary.

26:52	If I want to learn about
	that camera,

26:55	I begin to look at it,
	undo it, go into it.

26:58	There is no question
	of dispassion or passion,

27:01	I want to learn!

27:03	So I want to learn
	about this question of fear.

27:08	So to learn there must be
	no condemnation,

27:15	no justification of fear,

27:19	and therefore no escape verbally
	from the fact of fear.

27:26	S: All right.

27:28	K: But the tendency is
	to deny it.

27:34	S: To deny the reality of fear ?
	K: The reality of fear.

27:38	The reality that fear
	is causing all these things.

27:43	To deny by saying,
	‘I must develop courage’.

27:52	So, please, we are going
	into this problem of fear

27:56	because it is really
	a very important question:

28:01	whether human mind
	can ever be free of fear.

28:06	S: It certainly is.

28:08	K: Which means, whether the mind
	is capable of looking at fear,

28:19	looking, not in abstraction,
	but actually at fear as it occurs.

28:26	S: Facing fear.
	K: Facing fear.

28:29	S: All right, we should do this,

28:32	and I agree with you
	that we can’t deny it.

28:34	K: To face it, no condemnation.

28:39	S: All right.
	K: No justification.

28:43	S: Simply being truly objective.

28:46	K: Aware of fear.

28:48	S: Acknowledging?

28:50	K: I don’t acknowledge it.

28:53	If there is the camera there
	I don’t acknowledge it, it is there.

28:58	S: All right. I don’t want to distract
	our line of thought with these words.

29:03	K: Please, sir, that’s why one has
	to be awfully careful of words here:

29:06	the word is not the thing, therefore
	I don’t want to move away from this.

29:10	To learn about fear there must be
	no condemnation or justification.

29:18	That’s a fact. Then
	the mind can look at fear.

29:24	What is fear?

29:28	There is every kind of fear:
	fear of darkness, fear of the wife,

29:32	fear of the husband,
	fear of war, fear of storm,

29:37	so many psychological fears.

29:43	And you cannot possibly have
	the time to analyse all the fears,

29:51	that would take the whole life time,

29:53	by then you have not even
	understood any fear.

29:56	S: So it is the phenomenon
	of fear itself rather than any...

29:59	K: Than any particular fear.
	S: Right.

30:03	Now what should we learn?

30:04	K: Wait, I am going
	to show you, sir, go slow.

30:08	Now to learn about something you
	must be in complete contact with it.

30:18	Look, sir,
	I want to learn about fear.

30:24	Therefore I must look at it,
	I must face it.

30:28	Now to face something
	implies a mind

30:34	that does not want
	to solve the problem of fear.

30:41	S: To look at fear...

30:43	K: ... is not to solve
	the problem of fear.

30:47	Look, look, this is very
	important to understand

30:50	because then,
	if I want to solve fear

30:55	I am more concerned with
	the solution of fear than facing fear.

31:03	S: A moment ago though we
	were saying we should think...

31:06	K: I am facing it. But if I say,

31:08	'I must solve it', I am beyond it
	already, I am not looking.

31:14	S: You say that if we are trying
	to solve the problem of fear,

31:16	we are not truly facing it.
	Is that right?

31:20	K: Quite right, sir.
	You see, to face fear

31:26	the mind must give its
	complete attention to fear,

31:34	and if you give partial attention
	which is to say,

31:38	‘I want to solve it
	and go beyond it’,

31:40	you are not giving
	it complete attention.

31:42	S: I can see if you have split
	attention you're not fully attentive.

31:46	K: So, in giving complete attention
	to the learning about fear

31:51	there are several problems
	involved in it.

31:54	I must be brief
	because our time is limited.

31:58	We generally consider fear
	as something outside us.

32:04	So there is this question
	of the observer and the observed.

32:11	The observer says, 'I am afraid',

32:14	and he puts fear
	as something away from him.

32:20	S: I am not sure.

32:21	When I feel afraid, I am afraid,
	I feel it very much in here.

32:26	K: But when you observe it,
	it is different.

32:33	S: When I observe fear...

32:35	K: Then I put it outside.

32:38	S: Well, again that doesn’t
	seem quite right.

32:42	K: All right.
	At the moment of fear

32:46	there is neither the observer
	nor the observed.

32:49	S: That is very true.
	K: That is all I am saying.

32:51	At the crisis, at the moment
	of actual fear there is no observer.

32:58	S: It fills the horizon.

33:00	K: Now, the moment you begin
	to look at it, face it,

33:04	there is this division.

33:07	S: Between the fearful self and the...
	K: The non-fearful self.

33:11	S: ... the bear who is going
	to eat me out there.

33:14	K: So in trying to learn
	about fear,

33:19	there is this division between
	the observer and the observed.

33:25	Now, is it possible to look at fear
	without the observer?

33:35	Please, sir, this is really
	quite an intricate question,

33:38	a complex question,
	one has to go into it very deeply.

33:43	As long as there is the observer

33:46	who is going to learn about the fear,
	there is a division.

33:51	S: That’s true.
	We are not in full contact with it.

33:55	K: Therefore in that division

33:56	is the conflict of trying
	to get rid of fear, justify fear.

34:04	So is it possible to look at fear
	without the observer,

34:12	so that you are completely
	in contact with it all the time?

34:19	S: Well, then you are
	experiencing fear.

34:23	K: I wouldn’t like to use
	that word ‘experience’,

34:25	because experience implies
	going through something.

34:31	Finishing with it.

34:33	S: All right.
	I don’t know what word.

34:35	It seems better than ‘looking at’,

34:37	because ‘looking at’
	does seem to imply a division

34:40	between an observer
	and the observed.

34:41	K: Therefore we are using
	that word ‘observing’.

34:45	Being aware of fear
	without choice,

34:51	which means the choice
	implies the observer,

34:55	choosing whether
	I don’t like this, or I like this.

34:58	Therefore when the observer is absent
	there is choiceless awareness of fear.

35:07	S: All right.
	K: Right.

35:10	Then what takes place?
	That’s the whole question.

35:15	The observer creates
	the linguistic difference

35:22	between himself
	and the thing observed.

35:29	Language comes in there.

35:33	Therefore the word prevents being
	completely in contact with fear.

35:43	S: Yes. Words can be a screen.

35:46	K: Yes.
	That’s all that we are saying.

35:49	So the word mustn’t interfere.

35:51	S: True. We have to get beyond that.
	K: Beyond the word.

35:56	But is that possible,
	to be beyond the word?

35:59	Theoretically we say, yes,
	but we are slave to words.

36:04	S: Far too much so.

36:06	K: It is obvious,
	we are slave to words.

36:08	So the mind has to become aware
	of its own slavery to word,

36:14	realising that the word
	is never the thing.

36:19	So the mind is free
	of the word to look.

36:24	That is all implied.

36:27	Sir, look, the relationship
	between two people,

36:35	husband and wife,
	is the relationship of images.

36:41	Obviously,
	there is no dispute about it.

36:46	You have your image,
	and she has her image about you.

36:49	The relationship is
	between these two images.

36:53	Now, the real relationship,
	the human relationship is

36:57	when the images don’t exist.

37:01	In the same way the relationship
	between the observer and the observed

37:09	ceases when the word is not.

37:12	So he is directly
	in contact with fear.

37:18	S: We pass through.
	K: There it is. There is fear.

37:23	Now there is fear
	at the conscious level

37:27	– which one can understand
	fairly quickly.

37:30	But there are the deeper
	layers of fear,

37:33	so-called at the hidden
	parts of the mind.

37:39	To be aware of that.

37:43	Now is it possible
	to be aware without analysis?

37:51	Analysis takes time.
	S: Right. Surely it’s possible.

37:55	K: How? Not the ‘how’ of method.

37:58	You say, surely it is possible.
	Is it?

38:01	There is this
	whole reservoir of fear

38:06	– of the fear of the race, you follow,
	the whole content of the unconscious.

38:12	The content is the unconscious.

38:18	S: All right.

38:19	K: Now, to be aware of all that,

38:22	not through dreams,
	again that takes too long.

38:28	S: Now you are talking about
	whether we can be explicitly aware

38:33	of the full reach of mind?

38:35	K: Yes. The full content, reach of
	the mind which is both the conscious

38:41	as well as the deeper layers.
	The totality of consciousness.

38:47	S: Yes. And can we be explicitly
	aware of all of that?

38:52	I am not sure.
	K: I say it is possible.

38:55	It is only possible when you are
	aware during the day what you say,

39:02	the words you use, the gestures,
	the way you talk,

39:06	the way you walk,
	what your thoughts are,

39:09	– to be completely and totally
	aware of all that.

39:13	S: Do you think all of that
	can be before you

39:16	in total awareness?
	K: Yes, sir. Absolutely.

39:20	When there is no condemnation
	and justification.

39:25	When you are directly
	in contact with it.

39:30	S: It seems to me
	that the mind is

39:32	like an iceberg
	with regions of it...

39:35	K: An iceberg is nine-tenths below
	and one-tenth above.

39:39	It is possible to see
	the whole of it,

39:45	if you are aware during the day
	of your thoughts, of your feelings,

39:51	aware of the motives,

39:54	which demands a mind
	that is highly sensitive.

39:58	S: We can certainly be aware of much,
	much more than we usually are.

40:04	When you say we can be aware...

40:06	K: Totally, yes, sir.
	S: …of all the psychological factors.

40:09	K: I am showing you,
	I am showing you!

40:11	You are denying it.

40:13	You say, ‘it is not possible’,
	then it is not possible.

40:16	S: No, I’d like to believe
	that it’s possible.

40:18	K: No,
	it’s not a question of belief.

40:21	I don’t have to believe
	in what I see.

40:25	It’s only when I don’t see
	I believe – in God, in this or that.

40:29	S: For me it is a matter of belief,
	maybe not for you because you...

40:32	K: Ah no. Belief is the most
	destructive part of life.

40:36	Why should I believe the sun rises?
	I see the sunrise.

40:41	When I do not know what love is
	then I believe in love.

40:48	S: Like so many times
	when I listen to you speak

40:54	it seems to me like a half-truth
	which is stated as a full truth,

41:03	and I wonder whether that is
	for the sake of emphasis,

41:07	or whether it really is, you really
	mean to carry it all the way.

41:11	K: No, sir. To me it really is.

41:13	S: We have been speaking
	of the elements that block us,

41:17	the things that block us from
	a life of lucidity and freedom:

41:22	authority, violence, fear.

41:26	Our time is short

41:28	and I wouldn’t like to spend
	all the time on these obstacles.

41:32	Is there anything affirmative
	we can say of this condition?

41:36	K: Sir, anything affirmative
	indicates authority.

41:43	It’s only the authoritarian mind
	that says, ‘let’s be affirmed’.

41:49	Which is in opposition to negation.

41:53	But the negation we are
	talking about has no opposite.

42:00	S: Well, now when I ask you
	for an affirmative statement

42:04	it doesn’t seem to me

42:06	that I am turning over a decision
	to use an authority.

42:11	I just want to hear if you have
	something interesting to say

42:15	which I will then
	stand judgement upon.

42:18	K: With regard to what?

42:20	S: As to whether it speaks
	to my condition.

42:23	K: What? With regard to what,
	you said 'something', about what?

42:28	S: About the state of life
	that it seems to me

42:33	we are groping for
	in our words to describe.

42:37	K: Are you trying to say, sir,
	that life is only in the present?

42:46	S: In one sense I think that is true.
	Is that what you were saying?

42:49	K: No, I am asking you,
	is this what you are asking:

42:52	is life to be divided into
	the past, present and future

42:58	– which becomes fragmentary –

43:02	and not
	a total perception of living?

43:08	S: Well, again as so often it seems
	to me that the answer is both/and.

43:13	In one sense it is a unity
	and it is present

43:17	and the present is all we have,

43:19	but man is a time-binding animal, as
	they say, who looks before and after.

43:25	K: So man is the result of time,

43:29	not only evolutionary

43:31	but chronological
	as well as psychological.

43:35	S: Yes.

43:36	K: So he is the result of time:
	the past, the present and the future.

43:44	Now, he lives mostly in the past.

43:50	S: All right, mostly.

43:51	K: He is the past.

43:55	S: All right.
	Again it’s that half-truth.

43:59	K: No, no, I’ll show it to you.

44:00	He is the past
	because he lives in memory.

44:05	S: Not totally.

44:06	K: Wait, sir.
	Follow it step by step.

44:08	He lives in the past
	and therefore he thinks

44:13	and examines and looks
	from the background of the past.

44:18	S: Yes. Which is both good and bad.

44:22	K: No, no.
	We are not saying good and bad.

44:24	There is no good past or bad past.

44:27	We are concerned with the past.
	Don’t give it a name.

44:31	S: All right.

44:32	K: Like calling it good or bad,
	then we are lost.

44:34	He lives in the past,
	examines everything from the past

44:39	and projects the future
	from the past.

44:43	So he lives in the past,
	he is the past.

44:52	And when he thinks
	of the future or the present,

44:56	he thinks in terms of the past.

45:01	S: All right. It seems to me
	that most of the time that is true

45:06	but there are new perceptions
	that break through,

45:09	new experiences that break through
	the momentum of the past.

45:15	K: New experiences break through

45:17	only when there is
	an absence of the past.

45:23	S: Well, it seems to me
	it is like a merging of things

45:26	that we perforce bring
	with us from the past,

45:30	but bring to play upon the novelty,
	the newness of the present

45:36	and it is a fusion of those two.

45:38	K: Look, sir, if I want
	to understand something new

45:42	I must look at it
	with clear eyes.

45:45	I can’t bring the past,
	with all the recognition process,

45:50	with all the memories,

45:51	and then
	translate what I see as new.

45:55	Surely, surely,
	now just a minute:

45:57	the man who invented the jet,
	must have forgotten,

46:04	or be completely familiar
	with the propeller,

46:10	and then there was
	an absence of knowledge

46:13	in which he discovered the new.

46:15	S: That’s fine.
	K: Wait, wait.

46:17	It is not a question of, that’s fine.

46:19	That is the only way
	to operate in life.

46:23	That is, there must be
	complete awareness of the past,

46:30	an absence of the past,
	to see the new.

46:36	Or to come upon the new.
	S: All right.

46:40	K: You are conceding reluctantly.

46:42	S: I am conceding reluctantly because
	I think I see what you are saying,

46:47	and I think I agree with the point
	that you are making,

46:50	but it is also true
	that one operates in terms of...

46:56	K: The past.
	S: …symbols that one has.

46:58	And it is not as though
	we begin de novo.

47:02	K: De novo is not possible,
	but we have to begin de novo

47:07	because life demands it, because we
	have lived in this way, accepting war,

47:14	hatred, brutality, competition,
	and anxiety, guilt, all that.

47:21	We have accepted that,
	we live that way.

47:24	I am saying: to bring about
	a different quality,

47:28	a different way of living
	the past must disappear.

47:32	S: We must be open to the new.

47:34	K: Yes. Therefore the past
	must have no meaning.

47:38	S: That I can’t go along with.

47:41	K: That is what the whole
	world is objecting to.

47:44	The established order says,
	‘I can’t let go' – for the new to be.

47:51	And the young people
	throughout the world say,

47:54	‘let’s revolt against the old’.

47:56	But they don’t understand
	the whole complications of it.

48:02	So they say, what have you given us,
	except examinations, job,

48:09	and repetition of the old pattern
	– war and favourite wars, wars.

48:16	S: Well, you are pointing out,
	it seems to me,

48:19	the importance of not
	being slaves to the past.

48:24	And that’s so true and
	I don’t want to in any way...

48:29	K: The past being the tradition, the
	past being the pattern of morality,

48:33	which is the social morality,
	which is not moral.

48:37	S: But at the same time there is only
	one generation, namely ourselves,

48:41	that separates the future generation
	from the cave man.

48:47	K: I agree with all that.

48:48	S: If the cave man were to be totally
	rescinded we would start right now.

48:52	K: Oh, no, no.
	To break through the past, sir,

48:58	demands
	a great deal of intelligence,

49:01	a great deal
	of sensitivity – to the past.

49:04	You can’t just break away from it.

49:06	S: OK, I am content.

49:12	K: So the problem really, sir, is,
	can we live a different way?

49:20	S: Hear, hear!

49:22	K: A different way in which
	there are no wars, no hatreds,

49:26	in which man loves man,
	without competition, without division,

49:32	saying you are a Christian,
	you are a Catholic,

49:34	you are a Protestant,
	you are this...

49:36	that’s all so immature!
	It has no meaning.

49:42	It’s an intellectual
	sophisticated division.

49:46	And that is not a religious mind
	at all, that’s not religion.

49:51	A religious mind is a mind
	that has no hatred,

49:57	that lives
	completely without fear,

50:00	without anxiety, in which there is not
	a particle of antagonism.

50:07	Therefore a mind that loves

50:12	– that is a different dimension
	of living altogether.

50:18	And nobody wants that.

50:20	S: And in another sense
	everybody wants that.

50:22	K: But they won’t go after it.

50:26	S: They won’t go after it?
	K: No, of course not.

50:28	They are distracted
	by so many other things,

50:31	they are so heavily conditioned
	by their past, they hold on to it.

50:34	S: But I think there are some
	who will go after it.

50:37	K: Wait, sir, very few.

50:39	S: The numbers don’t matter.

50:41	K: The minority is always
	the most important thing.

50:45	S: Krishnamurti, as I listen to you
	and try to listen through the words

50:50	to what you are saying,

50:52	it seems to me that
	what I hear is that, first,

50:57	I should work out and each of us
	should work out his own salvation,

51:02	not leaning on authorities
	outside;

51:06	second, not to allow words to form a
	film between us and actual experience

51:15	– not to mistake the menu
	for the meal –

51:19	and third, not to let the past swallow
	up the present, take possession,

51:27	to responding to a conditioning
	of the past,

51:32	but rather to be always open
	to the new, the novel, the fresh.

51:39	And finally, it seems to me
	you are saying something

51:44	like the key to doing this is a
	radical reversal in our point of view.

51:52	It is as though we were prisoners
	straining at the bars for the light,

51:56	and looking for the glimpse
	of light that we see out there

51:59	and wondering how we can
	get out towards it,

52:01	while actually the door of the cell
	is open behind us.

52:05	If only we would turn around,
	we could walk out into freedom.

52:09	This is what is sounds to me
	like you are saying. Is this it?

52:13	K: A little bit, sir, a little bit.

52:15	S: All right. What else?
	What other than that?

52:21	Or if you want to amplify.

52:23	K: Surely, sir,
	in this is involved

52:30	the everlasting struggle, conflict,

52:36	man caught
	in his own conditioning,

52:40	and straining, struggling,
	beating his head to be free.

52:49	And again we have accepted

52:53	– with the help of religions
	and all the rest of the group –

52:56	that effort is necessary.
	That’s part of life.

53:06	To me that is the highest
	form of blindness,

53:11	of limiting man to say, ‘you must
	everlastingly live in effort’.

53:20	S: And you think we don’t have to.
	K: Not, ‘I think’, it is...

53:24	Sir, it is not a question of thought.
	Thought is the most...

53:28	S: Let’s delete those two words
	and just say we don’t have to.

53:32	K: But to live without effort
	requires the greatest sensitivity

53:37	and the highest form
	of intelligence.

53:40	You don’t just say, ‘well, I won’t
	struggle’, and become like a cow.

53:44	But one has to understand how
	conflict arises, the duality in us,

53:55	the fact of ‘what is’, and ‘what
	should be’, there is the conflict.

54:04	If there is no ‘what should be’,
	– which is ideological,

54:08	which is non-real,
	which is fiction –

54:13	and see ‘what is’,
	and face it, live with it

54:19	without the ‘what should be’,

54:22	then there is no conflict at all.

54:26	It’s only when you compare,
	evaluate with ‘what should be’,

54:33	and then look with ‘what
	should be’ at the ‘what is’,

54:39	then conflict arises.

54:41	S: There should be no tension
	between the ideal and the actual.

54:45	K: No ideal at all.
	Why should we have an ideal?

54:48	The ideal is the most idiotic
	form of conceptual thinking.

54:53	Why should I have an ideal?

54:55	When the fact is burning there, why
	should I have an ideal about anything?

55:00	S: Well, now once more when you
	speak like that it seems to me

55:05	that you break it into an either/or.

55:07	K: No, no.
	S: Not the ideal but the actual

55:10	where it seems to me
	the truth is somehow both of these.

55:14	K: Ah, no. Truth is not a mixture
	of the ideal and the ‘what is’,

55:18	then you produce
	some melange of some dirt.

55:22	There is only ‘what is’.

55:25	Sir, look, take a very simple example:
	we human beings are violent.

55:32	Why should I have
	an ideal of non-violence?

55:38	Why can’t I deal with the fact?

55:41	S: Of violence?
	K: Of violence, without non-violence.

55:45	The ideal is an abstraction,
	is a distraction.

55:50	The fact is I am violent,
	man is violent.

55:53	Let’s tackle that,
	let’s come to grips with that

55:57	and see if we can’t live
	without violence.

56:02	S: But can...

56:05	K: Please, sir, there is no
	dualistic process in this.

56:09	There is only the fact
	that I am violent, man is violent,

56:15	and is it possible
	to be free of that.

56:19	Why should I introduce
	the idealistic nonsense into it?

56:26	S: No dualism, you say,
	no separation,

56:30	and in your view is it the case
	that there is no separation?

56:34	K: Absolutely.

56:37	S: Is there any separation, you, me?

56:39	K: Sir, wait, physically there is.

56:43	You have got a black suit, are
	a fairer person than me, and so on.

56:46	S: But you don’t feel dualistic.
	K: If I felt dualistic

56:49	I wouldn’t even sit down
	to discuss with you,

56:52	then intellectually
	we play with each other.

56:56	S: Right. Now perhaps
	we are saying the same thing,

56:59	but always it comes out
	in my mind it’s a both/and

57:02	– we are both separate and united.
	Both.

57:06	K: No. Sir, when you love somebody
	with your heart, not with your mind,

57:10	do you feel separate?

57:11	S: I do in some... it's both.
	I feel both separate and together.

57:16	K: Then it is not love.

57:18	S: I wonder because part of
	the joy of love is the relationship

57:24	which involves in some sense,
	like Ramakrishna said,

57:28	‘I don’t want to be sugar,
	I want to eat sugar’.

57:30	K: I don’t know Ramakrishna,
	I don’t want any authority,

57:33	I don’t want to quote any bird.
	S: Don’t get hung up on this.

57:37	K: Sir, no!
	We are dealing with facts,

57:42	not with what somebody said.
	The fact is...

57:45	S: That in love, part of the beauty
	and the glory of it,

57:50	is the sense of unity embracing
	what in certain respects is separate.

57:58	K: Sir, just a minute, sir. Let’s
	be a little more unromantic about it.

58:04	The fact is when there is love
	between man and woman,

58:11	in that is involved possession,
	domination, authority, jealousy,

58:18	all that is involved in it.
	Of course there is.

58:22	And comfort, sexual pleasure,
	and the remembrance.

58:27	All that. A bundle of all that.

58:32	S: And there’s some positive
	things you have left out,

58:34	but you are assuming those.
	K: Yes, yes. A bundle of all that.

58:37	Is love jealousy?

58:40	Is love pleasure? Is love desire?

58:47	If it is pleasure, it is merely
	the activity of thought,

58:52	saying, ‘Well, I slept with that
	woman, therefore she is mine’

58:56	and the remembrance of all that.

58:59	That’s not love.
	Thought is not love.

59:05	Thought breeds fear,
	thought breeds pain,

59:08	thought breeds pleasure,
	and pleasure is not love.

59:13	S: Thought breeds only the negative?
	K: What is the positive?

59:18	What is the positive thing
	that thought produces,

59:21	except mechanical things?
	S: A love poem.

59:24	K: Sir, love poem. What?

59:27	The man feels something
	and puts it down.

59:30	The putting down is irrelevant,
	merely a form of communication.

59:36	But to feel it !
	It's nothing to do with thought.

59:41	To translate it then is necessary,
	for thought. But to love...

59:48	S: Thought and words can also
	give form to our feelings

59:53	which would remain inchoate
	without them.

59:59	Bring them to resolution,
	to satisfying resolutions,

1:00:03	through their expression.

1:00:05	K: Is relationship
	a matter of thought?

1:00:10	S: Not only, but thought can
	contribute to a relationship.

1:00:17	K: Thought is always the old,
	relationship is something new.

1:00:22	S: Yes,
	but there are new thoughts.

1:00:24	K: Ah! There is no such thing
	as new thoughts.

1:00:28	Forgive me to be so emphatic.

1:00:30	S: No, I like that.

1:00:31	K: I don’t think
	there is a new thought.

1:00:35	Thought can never be free because
	thought is the response of memory,

1:00:38	thought is the response of the past.

1:00:40	S: When a great poet comes through
	with the right words

1:00:46	to articulate a new perception,
	nobody has before,

1:00:50	not even God, has thought
	of those particular words.

1:00:54	K: That’s a mere matter of a cunning
	gift of putting words together.

1:00:58	But what we are talking about...
	S: A noble trade.

1:01:02	Poetry is a great contribution.
	K: Ah, that’s a minor thing.

1:01:05	No, sir, that’s a minor thing;
	the major thing is

1:01:08	to see the beauty of life

1:01:10	and see the immensity of it,
	and to love.

1:01:21	S: There it ended,
	a conversation with Krishnamurti.

1:01:26	But what ended was only
	the words, not the substance.

1:01:30	For Krishnamurti
	was speaking, as always,

1:01:33	of that life that has
	no end, and no beginning.