AM71T2 - Can one end sorrow? home
Amsterdam - 23 May 1971
Public Talk 2

Text-only version

0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s second public talk in Amsterdam, 1971.
0:08 Krishnamurti: We were asking yesterday: what is relationship. And as that is a very important question because relationship brings about either conflict, sorrow and great deal of confusion leading to various forms of neurotic behaviours, and also as relationship makes for good or bad society we should give some time to understand this really very complex problem. Because if our minds are not free of problems we will inevitably, as we said yesterday, create for ourselves authorities and thereby conform, imitate and feel deeply frustrated. And as in relationship behaviour is absolutely necessary, right behaviour, and that must be the foundation for what one may call meditation – which we shall go into in one of these talks. 2:28 Because our minds are seeking not only physical comfort, physical security, but also deeply, inwardly, psychologically, we want certainties in our relationship, in our attitudes, in our activities. And not finding them completely, we resort to religious concepts, beliefs and dogmas, and thereby make our life much more complicated, more conflicting and miserable. So it seems to me that it’s very important to understand what actually is relationship, as it is now, and if it is possible to radically change it.
3:59 So first we must examine the fact, the fact of our relationship as it is. You know, there is a great deal of difference between fact ‘what is’, and the concept which we draw from the fact. The concept drawn from the fact is stationary whereas fact is always living, moving. You give a name to a river, ‘the Rhine’ – that’s an abstraction from the fact, which is the living, moving waters of the river. So we must be very clear that we are not dealing with abstraction, conclusions, but only with the living facts. And as long as we see the fact and not escape into a conclusion, which is an abstraction of the fact, then we can comprehend or move with the fact.
6:05 Abstraction or conclusion is, as we said, fixed, stationary, and it’s fairly easy for the mind to follow that which is fixed. Whereas to live with a fact which is constantly changing becomes much more difficult. That is, we are going to examine the fact of actual relationship as it is and investigate it, not come to any conclusion. The conclusion then becomes an abstraction of the fact, and it is easier for most minds to live with conclusions. Then if you live with conclusions, as that is fixed, life becomes almost mechanical, whereas to move with the fact demands watchful alertness, capacity to move with it. 7:40 So, we are going to examine together – and I hope together, not let the speaker go on with his examination and you not partake in it, but together, you and I, examine the fact of what actually relationship is as we live it daily. In that there is no abstraction, no formulation, no ideal, but only observing very closely the fact, what goes on in our relationship. So please bear in mind that we are not drawing any conclusion but only moving with the fact and therefore changing ‘what is’.
9:03 What actually is our relationship as we live it daily? I do not know if you have gone into this question for yourself, not according to some philosopher or some psychologist or an analyst, but actually observing your own relationships. Because then it’s much more living, much more real than merely to follow some psychologist explain what a relationship should be. ‘What should be’ is an abstraction and not actually actual. Whereas if we could look at our relationship together, then out of that perhaps comes a radical change in the fact. What is our relationship with each other? Man-woman, with our neighbour, in the business world, the relationship of the scientist, the artist, to the community, the relationship of the politician to each one of us, whom we have elected for our misery out of our confusion. 11:06 And if we don’t understand our relationship, that is, relationship between you and me, between we and they… As one observes it – it’s not an opinion, not a conclusion by the speaker, but as one observes it in daily life – one sees that it is a series of conflicts, series of adjustments, adjustments based on the previous memory or previous image with the present living fact.
12:29 In our relationships with each other – man-woman, with the neighbour, and so on, each one is isolating himself in his self-centred activity, enclosing himself, building a wall around himself – ambitious, competitive, envious, he in his office or in his workshop or in the laboratory, this competitive, isolating spirit is going on, and she also has her own problems, her own desires, frustrations. And how can there be a relationship when each one is pursuing his own particular demands, appetites? This is a fact, isn’t it? 14:22 Occasionally there is deep communion but mostly each one separate, divided, not only in himself but between each other. And as we said, where there is division there must be conflict. And where there is conflict there must be total neglect of any kind of relationship. And is it possible at all to change this fact so that we have not only with another, complete relationship in the sense no division, no separation? There is no me and you – you pursuing your own urges, tendencies, appetites, and I doing the same in my own way.
16:23 Which means we live within the dimension of thought, which makes an image, and memory holds that image. Memory is that image of each other. You have an image about him or she has an image about you and the relationship is between these two images, and therefore not actual relationship, and hence the conflict. And our life, as one observes, is based or is in the dimension of thought, within the field of thought.
17:57 And to bring about a radical change in our life – and there must be a change, a revolution in our ways of action, thought and living – one must go into this question of what is thought, if there is at all a different dimension which is not the dimension of thought. Because this is very important to understand, because we see how thought operates in the world, intelligently or unhealthily, mechanically or ‘freely’ – freely in quotation marks, in a limited way. Please, do share this with me, don’t just listen casually to this thing, because we are going to go into something that demands your attention. 19:19 because it’s your life, your concern with your life. And your life is my life and another’s life. Whether one is born in India or in China or in Russia or in Europe or America, we are human beings not labels. And as human beings we have got these enormous, complex problems. And when we share our problem together it is not your problem or my problem, it’s the human problem. And the human problem is far greater than a particular problem.
20:27 So we see our relationship is based on thought and image, isn’t it? If you observe yourself, if you see yourself and study yourself very carefully, not according to any philosopher or any psychologist, past or present, but actually watch yourself, you will see your relationships are based on conclusions, images from past memories and to future conclusion, which is all the process of thinking. In this relationship there is either submission or domination, possessiveness or detachment, indifference, a sense of pleasure and pain, fear and envy, which are all the process of thought. 22:22 So, one must examine, it seems to me, very closely, what is the mechanism of thinking. And can there be a relationship, a dimension, which is not in the field of thought? Which we are going to discover by examining it.
22:59 What is thinking? Obviously, thinking is the response of accumulated memory: memory, experience, knowledge. The whole structure and nature of our brain is the result of accumulated knowledge and experience, which is memory. And when that memory is challenged there is a response as thought and action. Right?
23:55 You know, if you look at yourself, observe yourself, you will find much more than any book can give you. You’ll discover far more in studying yourself than any philosopher, any analyst, any psychologist can explain. And unfortunately, most of you will read books about all these and never become aware of yourself. Now, what we are doing now is to examine ourselves, look at ourselves and understand the whole process of the self, the knowing of oneself, by observing the mechanism of thought. So thought is the response of memory, and that memory is essential, otherwise we cannot speak English or whatever it is we are communicating with each other.
25:42 So knowledge is essential, but also knowledge prevents relationship. That is, you have insulted me or flattered me, and that becomes the knowledge. And I, when I meet you next time, I treat you as an enemy or a friend. That’s is so, isn’t it? So, knowledge as the past interferes with relationship. So, one has to find out for oneself whether there can be a relationship in which thought doesn’t interfere at all. That is, thought as memory, as the past. Because relationship implies a constant living movement, and not bring the past conclusions in relationship. Am I going... is this... am I making myself clear?
27:44 Audience: Yes.
27:46 K: Thank God. At least for some.
27:54 And we see in relationship, actually as it is, the demand is for pleasure. So one has to find out what is pleasure. Not that there should not be pleasure but to enquire into the whole question of pleasure because most of our morality, our action, our attitude, our search for reality, God, what you will, is based on pleasure or escape from sorrow. So one has to understand pleasure, fear and sorrow so that one can comprehend what is true relationship. So what is pleasure, which we all pursue so eagerly, so ruthlessly? 29:23 And when that pleasure is denied, there is anger, there is hatred, there is violence. Violence is a fact not a conclusion. So one has to go into this question of what is pleasure and why the mind pursues so eagerly and persistently and continuously this thing called pleasure, in so many different ways – sexually, ideologically, in action, in morality – why the principle of pleasure has become so extraordinarily strong.
30:34 Now, what is pleasure? We must differentiate between pleasure and joy. We must also keep that in mind. We’ll understand what joy is when we understand what pleasure is. Is not pleasure the product and the continuation of thought? You see something very beautiful. At that moment, there is neither pleasure but only the reality of what is seen. Then thought comes and seeks ways and means of having that same incident, of beauty or whatever it be, and thinking about it gives it a continuity as pleasure. 32:12 I saw something beautiful yesterday evening – a lovely tree, beautiful shape, sparkling in the sun – at that moment there was no pleasure, only perception of something extraordinarily beautiful. Then that beauty has left a mark on the mind, and thought as memory says, ‘I would like to have that pleasure, that thing repeated.’ Right? The demand for the repetition of that incident or happening is the demand for pleasure. All right, put it more brutally. You’ve had sexual experience yesterday – or perhaps not brutally, you may like that way – and you want it repeated. 33:52 Which is the repetition of an incident which is over, and thought creates the image, pictures and all the rest of it, and wants it repeated. So the repetition, the demand for a repetition and the continuation and the nourishing of that incident, which was over, is pleasure. All right? We are meeting each other? And when that pleasure is denied, thwarted, then there is a sense of frustration, anger, hatred.
34:48 So thought sustains an incident, a happening, as pleasure. And thought also sustains and gives a continuity to fear. Right? You know, we are afraid of so many things – not only of losing a job, afraid of not being important, afraid of not fulfilling, not becoming, from the most infantile fear of darkness to the most complex forms of fear, including fear of death. You have done something in the past which you don’t want to be... won’t look or be shown to another, discovered – you’re afraid of that. So thought not only breeds, sustains pleasure but also gives a continuity to fear. Are we meeting each other? 36:44 You know, there are only... there are not only conscious fears but the deep-rooted fears. And when there is fear, mind cannot function efficiently, cleanly, clearly. And we live with fear – fear of old age, fear of the pain which we had week ago physically and thinking about it and not wanting it repeated again – the fear – thinking about that illness, that pain, and not wanting it repeated. Which is, thought giving a continuity of the pain which you had a week ago and not wanting it again. So thought gives a continuity to pleasure and fear. I think that’s fairly clear, isn’t it?
38:19 And what is sorrow? And in the Christian world, sorrow can never be, apparently, be resolved. It’s only what you call God can free you from sorrow – isn’t that the Christian conditioning, that there must be some outside agency that will absolve you, cleanse you of all sorrow. And you yourself cannot possibly be free of sorrow. You see, that is a conclusion, a theory, a belief, which prevents the mind from finding out if it can ever end sorrow for itself. So what is sorrow, and can the mind be ever free from it? We all know what sorrow is, we don’t have to explain it, give a description. 40:16 As we said, the description is never the described. We know what suffering is, both physical as well as psychological, conscious or unconscious. There is not only a personal suffering but this vast suffering in the world – the people that have not enough food – of which you know nothing, living in a rich country – poverty with all its degradation, war, the slaughter of human beings for a conclusion, for an idea, for a belief, for God. The mother who cries because her son is killed in the front, and so on – you know what sorrow is.
41:33 And that, can that end? Not when you die – now. Can that sorrow which one carries about with one like a heavy burden, can that come totally to an end? We say it can. It can end only when the mind, which is in sorrow, remains with it completely, without any escape from it. Now will you... Shall we try something together? You know what sorrow is, don’t you? Not the infantile sorrow of not having long hair, short hair, beautiful – you know, all the rest of that business – but the feeling of loneliness, the feeling of isolation, the feeling that there is nothing that you can rely on – everything has been taken away and you’re left alone, solitary, isolated, unhappy. 43:38 And to remain with that sorrow without any movement of thought. Please, do it as we are talking. So no escape. Because when you remain completely with that thing, without any escape, without any rationalisation or the desire to go beyond it, suppress it and so on, when you totally remain with it, then you will find out of that complete oneness with that sorrow – because there is no division between you and sorrow; you are sorrow – when you remain with it without any movement, then out of that comes passion. 45:00 Because the word ‘passion’ has its… root meaning is sorrow. So, the ending of sorrow is not something left to another. One can end sorrow.
45:39 And joy is something entirely different. You cannot invite joy, but you can invite pleasure. You can pursue pleasure, cultivate pleasure, but you cannot possibly cultivate or pursue joy. When you do, it becomes pleasure. You’ve had moments of joy, haven’t you? Suddenly it happens without your inviting it. And the memory of it, thought, and wanting to repeat it. So joy is made into pleasure by thought. So one has to find out if there is a dimension which is not the dimension of thought.
47:13 You know, we give such extraordinary importance to thought. We say thought is free, thought is creative – is it? Can thought be ever free? Or is thought always old? Because thought is the response of memory, therefore it can never be free; it’s always old. And we live in that dimension with the old, in the prison of thought. And thought, which is the response of knowledge and memory, is essential. When you write a letter, when you go to the office and do this or that, which is knowledge, knowledge is essential. 48:41 And also you see how knowledge becomes a hindrance – as fear, as sorrow, and so on. So can the mind function with knowledge and yet be free using knowledge? I don’t know if you... You see, our Gods, our rituals, all the inventions of the Church, in Europe and in India, elsewhere, are the result of our thinking, our thinking based on fear and pleasure and sorrow.
50:00 And if you… if one really, deeply, wants to find out what is the dimension in which thought doesn’t enter at all – which is, thought being the past – and therefore timeless. Not the timelessness of science fiction but the timelessness which is not thought. Because thought is time, isn’t it? Come on. Thought is sorrow, isn’t it? Thought is fear. Thought is the demand for more and more pleasure. And we live within that field, and all our relationship is based in that field. So one asks: is there a dimension, a world very close to the other world, this world, that is not the slave of time, slave of thought? I don’t know if you... Can the mind be free of the known and yet function with the known?
52:02 So, we come back to our first thing, which is, is there a relationship between human beings in which there is no conflict at all? Because thought based on the past must bring about conflict in all relationship. From that, one enquires into what is love. You are following all this? What is love? You know, to find out what it is, you must come to it through negation of what it is not. Isn’t it? You only find out what truth is when you know what falseness is. When you know that which is false, and see the truth in the false, then you can be free of the false. 53:39 So, to find out what love is you must come to it negatively. That is, to see what it is not. Obviously it is not envy – is it? – it’s not jealousy, hatred. How can a man who is ambitious, greedy, envious, pursuing his own, you know, trivialities, whether he wants to be the highest man in the state or whatever it is, how can such a man know what love is? Can you, you as a human being sitting there, can you put aside totally that which is not, that which is not love? And love is not to be cultivated by thought as pleasure. 55:16 Love is not the product of deep thinking. Love is not of yesterday or of tomorrow, therefore love is not of time. And yet our relationship is based on time, on pleasure, on fear with its sorrow. So when the mind observes all this, when you observe yourself, around you and your relationship – the actual relationship, not the theory of relationship, not the abstraction of the fact, but actually the living fact – and then the question arises how you observe, how you observe the fact – the fact that you are envious, the fact that you are pursuing pleasure, the fact that when there is sorrow, as you don’t know how to resolve it, you run away, you turn to something, you pray, pray, go to church or turn on the radio, football, what you will. 57:08 After all, the religious entertainment is the same as the entertainment on the football field, because you are running away. So, when you look at all this, which is our relationship with another, you ask: is it possible to totally change all this?
57:53 And from that question arises how you observe the fact. And this is important, how you observe the fact. Do you observe it with a conclusion, which is time, which is past? Do you observe it, condemning it, try to suppress it, rationalise it or escape from it? Which again is your conditioned response to the fact. Or do you observe it without any of that, without the past but only observe? In that observation is there an observer at all? 58:58 For the observer is the past. Can you observe your fear, your sorrow, all the things that one is caught in, without the memory of yesterday? Then you will see, if you can so observe – which means observe without the observer – then you will see the fact has totally changed. Then there is no conflict between the fact and yourself. You are the fact and therefore you are beyond the fact. Right.
1:00:18 Now perhaps we can discuss this, talk, question about all that we have talked this morning. That is, by asking questions, trying to explore, if you want, in further detail. [Pause] May I ask you a question? What have you got out of this morning’s talk?
1:01:14 Questioner: Become disturbed.
1:01:21 K: You’ve got further disturbance after listening to the talk. Good lord. [Laughter] Are you further disturbed, or you are disturbed? When you came here you were disturbed, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. You came because you are disturbed, you are confused, you’re part of this world, with all the misery, travail, anxiety – you’re disturbed – you know. The moment you think, you are disturbed. Only when you are asleep, then you can say, ‘Well I am not disturbed. Status quo, leave things as they are.’ 1:02:22 So when you came here you were disturbed. And are you going to leave being still further disturbed? Or you want to understand why there is this disturbance. Why are you disturbed – as most people are – why? What is disturbance? Why do you call it a disturbance? Which means you are disturbed because you want to find a place where you can be completely contented, satisfied, gratified, never be disturbed. Isn’t that so? When I say, ‘I am disturbed,’ what does that mean? Go on, sir. What does it mean? 1:03:39 Why shouldn’t you be disturbed? When the house is burning, aren’t you disturbed? The world is burning – chaos, mischief, misery. And isn’t disturbance an indication that you want to find a solution for all this chaos and confusion and you haven’t found it. If you found... if you find an answer which is completely satisfactory to you, then you won’t be disturbed will you? Will you? And is there such an answer which is so completely satisfactory?
1:04:52 So what you are seeking is not the ending of disturbance but something that will completely satisfy you. Right? Come on. Now, is there anything that will satisfy you? You have tried sex and that didn’t satisfy you. You have tried various forms of literary enquiry into all this confusion – that doesn’t solve. You’ve gone to the Church, followed this guru or that guru, you know, you play with all this things, window shop, window shopping, and that doesn’t satisfy you.
1:05:48 And you mean when you say you are disturbed, you want something that is permanent, that is absolutely certain. Permanency and certainty – which is a guarantee so that you will never be disturbed. Now, is there anything permanent, including you? You being your furniture, your bank account, your worries, your problems, your ambitions, greeds – you. Is that permanent? Is there anything in that permanent? You might say, ‘Yes, there is, the soul.’ And the Hindus translate it, say it’s the Atman – you know, they have their own words. 1:06:54 Is that permanent or invented by thought? Because thought demands something permanent because everything is so impermanent. You want permanency in your relationship. And is there a permanency, continuity, a changeless relationship? So, what you are, if I may point out, you’re disturbed because you want an answer to all this chaos and misery according to your particular demand, to your particular temperament, particular conditioning. And when one is disturbed, as one must, one must remain with it till you... and not escape 1:08:24 from it, so that disturbance itself is the answer. You understand? Not escape from it, not go to some philosopher or some psychologist, some guru to tell you how to get rid of that disturbance – he will. He’s got his own particular remedy, his own particular system, and that doesn’t solve it – you have covered your disturbance by another disturbance. So to remain with that, you know, like remaining with sorrow completely, then that disturbance becomes a flame, a passion. [Pause]
1:09:40 No questions?
1:09:47 Q: You say when the observer becomes… When you are not any longer the observer, the observed… [inaudible]
1:10:06 K: When there is no longer the observer, what do you then observe. Is that the question, sir?
1:10:14 When there is the observer, what do you observe? Do please go into this.
1:10:24 You know what the observer is, don’t you? When you observe your wife, your husband, your girl or a boy, what is that observer? Isn’t that observer the accumulated memories of that particular relationship, or in that particular relationship, accumulated all the various pleasures, hurts, pain – all that is the past, isn’t it? The observer therefore is the past, isn’t it? Are you following this? Isn’t the observer the past? And when through the eyes of the observer you observe, what do you observe? Aren’t you observing the image that you have, overshadowing the fact? 1:11:49 Right? Look, sir, if I happen to be born in India, what takes place? I am conditioned by the culture in which I’ve lived – their gods, their myths, their gurus, their superstitions, all their confusions of five thousand years, the tradition. My mind is conditioned by the culture in which it has lived, and that mind observes. That mind is the observer. And whatever he observes, the past overshadows, casts a shadow on the present, doesn’t it? Come on. So, to observe without the observer means to observe without the past. Look, if I’m a Catholic, I’ve been conditioned for two thousand years – the propaganda. 1:13:24 After all, all religions throughout the world are merely propaganda, aren’t they? Which I accept because I’m afraid, I’m uncertain. At least a belief gives me certainty. I’m conditioned, and this weight of two thousand years, I look at life, life which is always living, moving, vital. With my past conditioning I look and therefore there is a conflict between the observer and the observed. Right, sir? No? So is it possible to uncondition the mind completely? Uncondition the mind which was born in India, with all the tradition of five thousand years, so that the mind is fresh, young, active, innocent. 1:14:47 You know, that word ‘innocency’ means a mind that is incapable of being hurt. Our minds are hurt, distorted, brutalised, twisted, tortured, because we look at life with the past. We live... we are the past. That’s simple enough – we are the past. And can the mind look at life without the past? And hence no conflict.
1:15:50 Q: What is that thing by finding of which there is no disturbance? And how to find it?
1:16:09 K: What is that thing – when you have found it there is no disturbance – what is that thing.
1:16:19 Q: How to find it?
1:16:22 K: What is that thing and how to find it. First of all, the question how to find it implies, doesn’t it, a means, doesn’t it, a path, a system, a method. When you put the word ‘how’ to achieve something, all that is implied – a method, a system, a path. Now, is there a path, is there a system, is there a method to truth? And what is implied in a system? If you practise a system, your mind becomes mechanical, doesn’t it? So...
1:17:34 Q: [Inaudible] Ninety-nine per cent of humanity’s minds are very mechanical… [inaudible]
1:17:46 K: Ninety-nine per cent of the human beings are already mechanical and so you add more mechanical...
1:17:54 Q: [Inaudible]
1:17:56 K: Yes, sir, I understand that. Ninety-nine per cent of the people are mechanical.
1:18:03 Q: Therefore they need systems.
1:18:05 K: And therefore they need systems. Just think of the reasoning of this. [Laughter] Ninety-nine per cent of the people need... are mechanical and therefore they need mechanical systems. Make them more mechanical. [Laughter] Yes, sir. Find out, sir. Go into this question really very deeply.
1:18:36 Q: [Inaudible]
1:18:38 K: No, just, sir, look. This gentleman asks, what is that thing in the finding of which all disturbance comes to an end? And how is that thing to be achieved, to be come upon? We are saying a mechanical mind can never come upon it. And methods, systems and paths are mechanical.
1:19:16 Q: All those things which you say they are mechanical are not.
1:19:19 K: Yes, sir, that’s what we are saying, sir. Just listen to it. Just listen to it. Let me finish. Have a little patience. So my mind being mechanical asks something more mechanical. It doesn’t say, ‘How am I, how is this mind which is so terribly mechanical to be free of the mechanism, the mechanical habits?’ But you add more habits, more mechanical things to a mechanical mind. So the first thing is to find out if the mind can be free from the mechanical habits, which are beliefs, conclusions, the demand for systems, and all the rest of it. Tell me what to do and I will do it. What is the purpose of life? Point it out and tell me what steps to take towards it, and I will do it.
1:20:45 Q: You ask me what is the purpose of life, and I say to you the purpose of life is not to destroy life.
1:21:05 K: Wait, sir, wait, sir, no, no, no, no, no, no. Now, just a minute. I said, we want – you have not completely understood, if I may point out, sir, what I said – we want a purpose in life because our life is so changeable, contradictory, moving, in a flux, and we want something permanently fixed. And we’ll invent a purpose. The more intellectual, theoretically minded, we’ll invent a purpose. Because our life in itself, the living, has very little meaning, so we want something which has meaning, which can be posited – and intellect can do that, beautifully. 1:22:06 So what we are saying is, our minds being mechanical, and to be aware that it is mechanical, and to see that mechanical habits makes the mind dull, insensitive, and therefore not capable of perception, not capable of swiftness, subtlety. If you see that, the next question is, what is it that will, in the finding of which, will make the mind completely still, quiet? What is that? Now, how do you find it? Not the method, but what do you mean by finding?
1:23:19 Q: [Inaudible] Just a minute, sir. Just a minute, sir, I haven’t finished yet. Sorry.
1:23:31 When you say, ‘I want to find,’ what do you mean? When you say, ‘I want to find,’ you mean you have lost something which you will be able to find and be able to recognise, don’t you? When you use the word ‘find’, the implication in that word is that you will be able to recognise it. Right? Right, sirs? Now, what does that mean, recognition? You’ve already... it has already happened to you, you already know it and therefore you recognised it when it happens again. So, you say finding implies the movement of time. Right? That is, having known and having lost, re-finding it again. 1:24:33 Which is a process of time. Now, is that which is, is that of time, or is it beyond time, beyond thought? Therefore no finding it. It is. And therefore the mind must be free of the machinery of habit and be free of time. Which means one has to go into this whole question of thought, because we are... thought is sorrow, thought is pain, thought is pleasure, which is time. And to find out that which is beyond time, mind must be extraordinarily still. Not how to make it still, which we’ll go into when we discuss the whole question of meditation. Yes, sir?
1:25:44 Q: Is it working, this microphone?
1:25:50 K: You tell me what you want to say, I’ll repeat it.
1:25:54 Q: I’m speaking not so loud.
1:25:55 K: Go ahead, I’ll hear it, sir.
1:25:57 Q: Your words can be very wise and can be very strong and I think it’s very, very necessary… [inaudible] …East and West thoughts. But the question is, the big wisdom for me in the East is, there is yin yang, you know, there is inside and outside, there is spirit and there is body, there is up and down, there is night and day – all these – what you are seeing, this is really the law. I can be wrong, but if you deny the physical formulae, because whatever is made or created needs to be formulated, so outside formulae and also inside formulae, because it is not possible only outside, also inside.
1:27:35 K: Right, sir. I understand. I think I’ve got your question, sir.
1:27:38 Q: The ambition…
1:27:39 K: I think I’ve got your question, sir. Please correct it if I haven’t got it completely. You are saying it’s good that the East and the West meet, first. Right? We are not meeting East and West here. I happen to be... the speaker happened to be born in India, which was an accident, [laughter] and there is no East and West; we are human beings. Right? That is so tremendously important to wash out this nonsense, the East and West. We are human beings and we are born in India or here, with all our problems, with all our anxieties, starvations and loneliness, unhappiness, lack of love and all the rest of it. 1:28:42 There is no Eastern thought or Western thought, only thought. Then the questioner says, there is body and soul, up and down – division. And that division is natural – right, sir? – that division is essential. That’s the question. Why do we divide at all – body and soul, psychosomatic – psyche and soma, which is the body and soul – psychosomatic, they are together, they are not separate. That only arises that there is a separation when there is death. So we have divided living and dying. Right? So to us, living is one thing and dying is another thing. 1:30:20 And there is right and wrong, good and bad – you know, all the divisions in which our mind is caught. Why are we fragmented – you understand? – broken up – the physical, the soul, good, bad, me and not me, we and they – you know, division – my country and your country, my nationality and your nationality, my God and your God – why this division?
1:31:06 Q: Because we are living in not an ideal world.
1:31:13 K: No, no, we are not discussing ideal world. You see, please, forgive me, sir, forgive me, we are not talking about ideals, we are only discussing the fact. I carefully explained the fact is one thing and the abstraction of that fact as an ideal is another. We are only dealing with facts, not the abstraction. The abstraction may be true but not the fact. The fact is always moving, living. And from that movement – because one cannot keep up with this marvellous change of life, movement of life – one has to abstract as an idea and fix it and live with that idea. 1:32:17 Therefore we want something more fixed, more stable than the movement of the fact. And we are only dealing with fact. The fact is that we are divided, in ourselves and outwardly. That’s a fact. Divided in myself – I’m ambitious, I’m greedy, I’m envious, I’m seeking power, position, prestige, and I also want some kind of peace, hope, you know, rest. So I am divided, fragmented, broken up. Because I am broken up inwardly I am also broken up outwardly – nationality, the division of religions, class – you know, all the rest of it – divisions. 1:33:21 Now, when you look at this division, between you and me, we and they, don’t you ask why this fragmentation comes into being? Or do you say, ‘Well, that is so.’ Don’t you ask, don’t you want to find out for yourself why this fragmentation has come about, how it has come about? Because where there is fragmentation, which is division, there must be conflict – Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Arab, Pakistan and India – you know, for God’s sake. So where there is division there is conflict. And why are we caught in this division? Who has brought this about? 1:34:29 Some exterior agency, some God, some angel, some devil? Or we are responsible for it as human beings – we. You are responsible for it. That is, you are fragmented in yourself. And why are you fragmented? That is contradictory desires, contradictory ambitions, contradictory... contradiction of pleasure, pain, joy and sorrow. Why is there this contradiction? Not the superficial reaction, the explanation superficially, but the deep-rooted cause of this fragmentation – why?
1:35:32 Q: Because it is not possible that there is energy. If there is no subject and object...
1:35:59 K: Wait, sir.
1:36:00 Q: When I speak, you have to listen. When you speak, I have to listen. To have always give and take. And that, in ideal situation is a circle.
1:36:04 K: Yes, sir. You’re saying, in different words, that our energy is fragmented. Which is the same thing in another word. Now, I am asking you why we are fragmented. No, don’t, please, let me... You’ve asked the question, let me go on. Unless you want to sit here and I’ll go home. [Laughter] You’re perfectly welcome to come and sit here. Why is a human being, whether he lives in India, here, or in America, Russia, why is he tortured by this fragmentation, broken up? And I want to find out not only the cause of this fragmentation but also to end it, so that there is total harmony between the mind, the heart and action. 1:37:42 As we have divided the world geographically, nationally, for various economic, exploiting reasons, so we have religiously divided people – Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim. Again, that’s a fact. Because each one of us wants security. Because when I say I’m a Hindu, I feel secure. I’ve identified myself with something greater. When I have identified myself with what is called God, I feel rested, secure – there is some entity that’s looking after me. So nationally, religiously – because I’m seeking security, psychologically I want to be secure – and is there such thing as being completely secure?
1:39:11 Q: Yes.
1:39:13 K: You know, this is a – please, sir, go slowly – this is a very important question, take it slowly. Completely secure, safe. One finds completely security in a belief. Another finds complete security in some neurotic thought. Some find complete security in the nation, in some ideology or in a person. And is there such thing? I may want security, I may want permanency in my relationship, and is there such thing? If there is not, why is the mind seeking permanency? 1:40:23 Therefore, it divides itself: me as impermanent – because I am impermanent, I die, I change, my views undergo changes, I am not the same as I was a year ago, I have different ideas, different things have happened to me, I’ve lost my wife, my son, my husband, my neighbour, my country, I’m changing. Knowing I’m changing and being afraid of that change, I want something permanent – God, belief, an ideology, a purpose, a truth. So, ‘me’ impermanent – that is permanent. 1:41:28 That which I have said is permanent is the product of my impermanency. Because I have projected my desire to be permanent, knowing I am impermanent, in something which is permanent. So there is contradiction between me and that. And there is contradiction between the observer and the observed. So, thought – this requires a great deal of enquiry, please don’t accept it, don’t say it is so – thought divides itself. Thought divides itself as energy – this energy, that energy, the good energy and the bad energy. 1:42:33 We don’t have a total energy which is not broken up, because in ourselves we are uncertain, unclear. Knowing that there is nothing permanent, we want something permanent. Knowing there is no psychological security, wanting psychological security. We are unhappy to stand completely alone. And we don’t know what it means to stand alone; we only know what it means to be completely lonely. There is the division again. So, a mind which is aware of all this, not just one thing, aware of relationship, of pleasure, pain, fear, sorrow, aware of permanency and impermanency, demand for security and insecurity, and if there is something beyond all time – all that must be taken into account, must be looked at totally. 1:44:02 Then out of that total observation there is complete harmony, there is no fragmentation. Right, sir, that’s enough.
🢁