BR74S10 - The masters, Krishnamurti, meditation and silence home
Brockwood Park, UK - 18 October 1974
Seminar 10

Text-only version

0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s 10th seminar with scientists at Brockwood Park, 1974.
0:07 David Bohm: I think Krishnamurti will go on with his talk.
0:10 Krishnamurti: Do you want me to go on with the Masters and...?
0:15 George Sudarshan: I would like to hear it but I don’t know how...
0:18 K: I don’t know if the others want to hear it.
0:20 Harsha Tankha: Yes, I would like to hear it.
0:25 Questioner: Yes.
0:26 Q: Could I put another point of view? I wonder if we just if other people would prefer to go on to meditation and start...
0:34 K: I will finish this very quickly, sir.
0:38 Q: Yes.
0:39 K: (Laughs) I think it is in the Indian tradition, as well as in the Tibetan tradition, that there are such beings who do not appear in the world but live apart and help mankind. This is an old tradition; I’m pretty sure it exists in other religions too, and so on. (Pause) These Masters are hierarchical. And there was the head of the religious group in the hierarchy is – according to the Tibetan as well as Indian – is Maitreya. Correct me, sir, if I’m wrong. And he, when the world is in an unrighteous state, descends. And for that manifestation or avatar, these... Dr Besant and other people were told to look for an individual who would be suitable for that occupation. Phew! Are you interested in all this?
2:20 Q: Yes.
2:22 K: Why? (Laughs)
2:24 Q: I think people are wondering whether you had some special talent when you were young.
2:34 K: For that – let me finish – for that manifestation. So they were looking and they found this boy – I’m making it as brief as possible – and they said, ‘We must prepare this boy for that manifestation.’ And they were very serious people; they were not just crooked, exploiting, or... They said, ‘This is a thing which we firmly believe in.’ It is also in the Indian tradition that when you sleep there are various forms of the individual – astral – which travel from place to place. This is in the Indian tradition, as well as in the Tibetan tradition. 3:26 So the Masters told Dr Besant and others that the Maitreya – the World Teacher – would manifest and they must look for a body. They found a body (laughs) – the boy – and they were preparing that boy for his manifestation. He was looked after very, very, very carefully – I can’t go into the details; it is all written out somewhere – for a number of years. Being a Brahmin, the boy never touched meat and he has not touched meat since... ever; he doesn’t know what the taste of meat, or smoke, or drink, from childhood. 4:19 And they prepared it and... prepared the body. And they wanted, also, an organisation which would help him when he was here. So they formed this tremendous organisation all over the world, with a great deal of property, money and all the rest of it. And in 1910 – or before or after; I don’t remember exactly the date – there was... the boy was put through various forms of initiations – again, in the Indian tradition and Tibetan tradition – while he was asleep and [in the] awakened state; and he was sent to school, college... sent to school, and he tried to pass exams, he never failed... he failed in 5:30 every one exam: London University, etc., etc. He was sent to the Sorbonne and there too they tried to get him to pass an exam (laughs) — couldn’t do it; so they said, ‘For God’s sake, stop it now.’ (Laughs) And then, at a certain age, he began to speak against authority, the whole business. And in 1928, he dissolved – ’28, I think it was – dissolved the whole thing. And he has been talking since then. Now, the idea of Masters and the manifestation of the highest teacher is an accepted tradition in India and in Tibet. 6:24 It is not... It is what they said – what I think may be different; I’m not... that’s not important – they said, ‘This has been an ancient tradition from the time... pre-Buddha. I don’t know if you know all about... That is, Buddha was 550 BC and this tradition existed before him – Capella, if you know anything about it, is very, very ancient – and a few people were given the privilege – according to them – to be in contact with them. And at the age of 14, 15 – I’ve forgotten, whatever it was – he wrote At the Feet of the Master, that is the Masters... all that. 7:29 You see, their idea was – to finish the story – they looked for the boy in whose aura – you know aura, what that means? Do you? – every person, again in the Indian tradition and Tibetan tradition, that every person exudes a certain atmosphere, certain vibrations, certain quality, whatever it is, which surround him – which is logical, which you can see – and if you are clairvoyant, sensitive, you see those auras. And when they saw this boy, they said, ‘Ecco! ’ (laughs) because in his aura, there was very 8:26 little selfishness. Now, that’s the end of it. You may believe all this or you may not believe it. But they believed it with their heart and soul; and they committed themselves up to the hilt. You understand? It was... Dr Besant was very well-known in England, in Europe and in America, she led the first woman’s strike – she was the leader of the... – and she was the leader of birth control, she was the... – oh, everything – worked with Bradlaugh and so on. She was a very well-known socialist, Fabian, and all that. 9:20 (Pause) So when she said, ‘That boy is going to be the Teacher; that Great Teacher has manifested,’ she staked – you follow, sir? – all her reputation, all her work, everything into that.
9:47 Julian Melzack: When you disbanded it, was she angry?
9:55 K: No. I think she was sad.
9:58 JM: Did you continue to see her afterwards?
10:01 K: Oh, good Lord! She treated me as her son and guru. We used to... Wherever I went, in those days, she took me. Oh, good heavens, yes.
10:15 JM: Even afterwards?
10:16 K: Oh, good Lord, yes. (Laughs) It isn’t a thing you give up because... Love isn’t something you give up because you do something wrong or right.
10:27 Fritjof Capra: When you said that the boy had a special aura, what special did they see in terms of... any special colours or shapes or... what did they say?
10:36 K: Yes. (Laughs)
10:38 FC: If you want to answer it; I don’t know.
10:39 K: This is all, sir, again tradition. Selfishness I believe is red, isn’t it?
10:47 FC: I don’t know. I don’t know that.
10:50 K: Or some colour like that. No, what I would like to impress and say is that they were very serious people – maybe misguided, whatever you like to think – but they were not charlatans, not just for entertainment, for a circus, for something or other. They were really deadly serious people. (Pause)
11:21 GS: Were you sad when you had dissolved it?
11:30 K: What sir?
11:31 GS: Were you sad? You saw that it had to be dissolved, you dissolved it. You have had no regrets, but were you sad?
11:38 K: No. I didn’t want to – I think, and it’s a long time... – I didn’t want to upset Dr Besant, because she has brought me up, she was my... – you know? – the whole feeling that she had looked after me and all that; suddenly to... the thing she had built round me, suddenly say, ‘It’s all...’ – you know? Naturally, I was a little bit shy, embarrassed, a little perhaps sad, but not... it had to be done, therefore it... (Pause)
12:26 JM: I’d like to ask you a question. It’s not connected with...
12:32 K: Doesn’t matter, sir.
12:34 JM: And I am asking it, you know, in the best of faith.
12:38 K: It doesn’t... You can... (laughs)
12:40 JM: It’s true. This week, when we’ve been talking, all of us taking turns, have you been hearing what we’ve been saying?
12:47 K: Yes.
12:48 JM: I mean, you’ve been listening, you’ve been... Does it matter to you what we’ve been saying?
12:52 K: A little bit, yes; because you’re talking something which I don’t know. You’re talking, using words which I had to find out the meaning of. And I was listening not only to your words but trying to capture behind the word.
13:12 JM: What I’m really getting to is... have you ever changed your view of the world and about people, etc., because of what other people have said?
13:26 K: Oh no. I’ve never changed... What I’m talking about, I have been talking for the last fifty years, and it’s gone on; I’ve not changed it.
13:36 JM: So nothing that somebody could say will...?
13:39 K: No sir. After all, these are very simple things which we are talking about: pleasure, fear – you know, all the rest of it – human behaviour. And either it is so or it is not so.
14:02 JM: But people hold views about love and pleasure and pain that are different from yours.
14:13 K: I said... Oh, definitely; I know that. So I have sat with those people, by the hour, we have discussed it; either they convinced me or I have convinced them.
14:25 JM: But you’ve just said that they’ve never convinced you.
14:29 K: I’m afraid not.
14:31 JM: So for you...
14:34 K: It wasn’t obstinacy, it wasn’t prejudice — what is there to be convinced?
14:41 JM: So for you then the teaching process is really... it’s a one-way flow?
14:46 K: (Laughs) You see...?
14:47 GS: He too should have been an Indian. (Laughter)
14:53 K: In a way, ‘Yes,’ and in a way, ‘No,’ because I don’t... I think the whole idea of a teacher and disciple is not tenable. It is... Oneself must be the teacher and the disciple. And if you are willing to listen, then you are the teacher and the disciple for yourself.
15:29 JM: No, I agree that the teacher/disciple thing is not right but, I mean, teaching, the process of teaching, for me makes much sense...
15:39 K: If you... Yes...
15:41 JM: ...and we could, you know, everyone teaches...
15:42 K: That is, if you care to listen. I don’t want to convince you, I don’t want to do propaganda. If you care to listen, listen; if you don’t, it’s all right.
15:54 JM: Do you feel the same way?
15:58 K: What do you mean?
15:59 JM: Do you feel the same way towards people who are talking to you?
16:01 K: I don’t quite understand.
16:02 JM: I mean, do you leave open the possibility that the persons that are talking to you could change...?
16:09 K: Oh yes, obviously. I’m not such a... I may look an ass, but I... (laughs)
16:12 JM: No, no, no; that’s why I said... I asked what you...
16:15 K: ...but I carefully listen.
16:16 JM: But so far it’s...
16:20 K: I’m afraid not. Because I’ve discussed with analysts, professors, psychologists, (laughs) I’ve discussed with traditional Hindus, Catholics, Jesuits, and some scientists in India, in France, and with Dr Bohm, very carefully... for years we have been talking about these things.
16:50 FC: Have you yourself changed over the years? Not because of the influence of other people, but of your own evolution, that you had new insights, and...
17:01 K: No sir, I may have changed the words, changed the phrases, but the central core is...
17:10 FC: But you reached a balanced state a long time ago and then stayed in that state, would you say that?
17:16 K: If you like to put it that way.
17:17 Gordon Globus: Did you experience violence in yourself at some earlier time in your life?
17:22 K: No sir. No, no. I might have got irritated but that’s... superficial... but never deeply violent, no.
17:31 GG: How did you come to understand the nature of violence, not experiencing it yourself?
17:37 K: It’s around you. Why should I get drunk in order to find what sobriety is?
17:46 GG: But you often... You seem to say...
17:51 K: Oh, sorry (laughs).
17:52 JM: No, I’m just trying to understand.
17:54 GG: You seem, at times, to say that the way to understand violence is to understand yourself; that you can come to understand this by understanding your own violence.
18:05 K: No sir, I see violence around me – hate, antagonism, you know, all the whole business – and to understand it must one go through it oneself?
18:18 GG: Well, there’s something to knowing what it feels like. (Pause)
18:23 K: No, I’ve never honestly felt I...
18:31 Bryan Goodwin: This raises the question of perception, doesn’t it? Of...
18:36 K: And also it raises a question, sir – which is very fundamental, I think, if I may... May I go a little bit into it? – which is: can the mind, psyche, be not hurt? You understand? Because if one is hurt then violence begins, that hurt builds a fence around oneself; and to protect oneself one becomes violent. You know, all the whole reaction of that desire to shrink, desire not to be hurt again. From that... One of the major reasons for violence is this. And is it possible for a mind not to be hurt at all? (Pause) I say... for me... I say, ‘Yes, it is possible.’ Whether hurt or flattery. You understand, sir?
19:50 GG: Yes.
19:51 K: Both are the same... two facets of the same coin; because during all those years when I was the head, I was literally worshipped – you understand, sir? – candles (laughs)... You have no idea what it was like in India, and sometimes in Europe and so on.
20:11 Maurice Wilkins: I’d like to raise this matter of teaching because I’m not very clear on it myself. That... It seems to me too that one must accept some fundamental difficulty here, that in the modern world the idea is that one mustn’t use violence against other people’s minds by pushing things, ideas, at them and somehow or other one must encourage the other person to develop their own potential. But on the other hand, it seems inevitable that in as much as one has any interaction with them, that one is bringing in things which make an impact.
21:16 K: Of course, sir; of course. Of course. But say, for instance, we are talking here now. I... It’s very clear to me mere influence, stimulation, is [of] no value. But if you and I – you and I – could look at the thing together, observe this thing together, share the... together, then it’s yours... it’s not mine, it’s together it is. I don’t know if I am conveying anything at all in that.
21:55 MW: I think I’d need to think about the...
22:03 K: We are sharing this food together. It’s not my food or your food, it’s food. (Pause)
22:19 MW: Yes, but the food came from you initially.
22:27 K: What sir?
22:29 MW: The food came from you initially, that you share.
22:34 K: No. No... That is... Suppose you see something which is true. True in the sense not – well, let’s keep to... – you see something which is true. And I am... And you talk about it, and you want to share it with me. I must also be in a state of attention to share it. I must also stretch out my hand. I must also be willing to listen to what you have to say. Then in that sharing, it is not your product or my... it is there to be shared.
23:32 MW: Because you mean you encourage something which is already there in the other person?
23:38 K: Ah no, no. (Pause) Sir, I talk to the students, fortunately or unfortunately. I don’t want to influence them. I don’t want to do propaganda, because I think propaganda becomes a lie. And I want them to listen, just to look at something which somebody sees differently. In that looking they will discover what it is, then what they discover is this sharing. (Pause) Say, for instance, what we are going to do after this. We are going to... somebody asked, ‘Please, let us talk over together meditation.’ I’ll go into it, but to understand it you have to meditate. You have to get into the spirit of it. Then it is not mine or yours, it is the movement between us. I don’t know how to put it. (Pause)
25:23 FC: One of the points which you keep making is that one should stop thinking. You talk very much about thought. You are very much concerned to make people... not maybe to make people but to point out that one should stop thinking. Now, the method you use is mainly a verbal method; it is not only verbal, but it is largely verbal, because essentially what you do is you sit on a chair and you talk. 25:52 Now, there are other teachers who use other methods, some of them completely non-verbal methods. Now, do you think that to use, in a way, thought to make people stop thinking is more difficult or is a more difficult method, or do you have a predilection for words, for using the verbal method, or did it just happen that you used it and found it efficient and keep using it?
26:21 K: That’s all.
26:22 FC: That’s all.
26:23 K: And also... it has happened on several occasions non-verbal communication.
26:28 FC: Yes, I know, it must come in addition because you can’t do it with words alone. Of course.
26:34 K: Of course. But there is a great danger in that: it becomes translated or interpreted according to the listener’s prejudices, so it is not a direct non-verbal communication.
26:53 FC: Yes. But also, of course, there is difference between verbal and verbal, and you have a very specific technique. Did you develop this consciously or did this come about?
27:03 K: No, it came naturally, naturally.
27:05 FC: It came about.
27:08 BG: It’s really a question about the nature of institutions and how they should properly be structured in order to allow for a cooperative sharing activity. When the Theosophical Society existed...
27:23 K: It still exists, sir.
27:25 BG: Yes. When you were involved in it, you felt it was an obstructive institution. It was, in some sense, propagating error...
27:34 K: No sir. I didn’t... I felt any religious organisation – any religious organisation, whether it’s a small one or the Catholic or the Protestant, or any religious organisation – based on belief and authority and all that, is detrimental to the understanding of truth.
27:54 BG: And the principle of this institution, that is Brockwood Park, is one which involves no authority but each person being their own centre of creative activity and the encouragement of cooperative...
28:10 K: As far as possible. Of course. They are children, therefore they are (laughs) naughty, they are... you know, all that.
28:16 BG: Well, is...? Yes.
28:19 JM: I’d like to ask you a question, again related to my other questions, if I may. Do you think you have any prejudices which you bring to discussing and talking with other people?
28:32 K: I hope not.
28:33 JM: None at all?
28:34 K: I said, ‘I hope not.’ And if I do discover it, I know... I mean, it can be stopped instantly with me.
28:45 JM: I think I use the word prejudiced... it’s the wrong word. What I mean is, do you think you hear what other people say to you through a sort of filter which...?
28:56 K: No, no, no. Say, for instance, you have been talking a great deal here about science – more, more… all the rest of it – certain... I don’t understand some of it. I don’t understand the phraseology, and somebody asks that question and I get the meaning of it, and I listen. But suppose an Indian traditionalist comes to me or, as it has happened, several Jesuits come to see me, they want to convince me. 29:35 They want to say, ‘Look, authority is necessary. There is God.’ And so on and so on. I listen very, very carefully; it’s not I have a filter through which I listen, I listen very carefully. This has happened many, many times. I have proved it myself – not proved it; it’s so obvious, sir, when you are listening with a prejudice, when it’s not prejudice.
30:08 JM: Well, I think we... I mean, I think it’s almost necessary that we, all of us, in virtue of our being human have to take some filter; we have to use... I mean, that’s part of what being human is...
30:19 K: That’s my... Why should I listen with a prejudice when I want to understand what you’re saying?
30:24 JM: Because you have to; because you’re a human being.
30:26 K: Not at all. Why should I have a... I want to understand you. Look sir, I want to understand my wife. I want... She says something to me. Why should I not listen without prejudice? Because she... I love her; something is wrong if I...
30:47 JM: Sorry. I think we’re equivocating on the meaning of the word... or we all... I am too, on the meaning of the word prejudice. I don’t mean prejudice in a pejorative sense. I mean...
30:57 K: Pre-for... prejudice means pre-judging.
31:00 JM: I don’t even mean it in that active a sense. I mean the way Kant used the notions of space and time. I mean, they are necessary filters in virtue of our being human, that they must go through that first filter...
31:15 K: I don’t quite understand what you’re...
31:17 Robin Munro: Would it make any sense to put it this way: that you can understand an Indian person quite easily because you’re Indian, you grew up in India. You might not...
31:26 K: Sir, I grew up in India until I was nine years old, ten years old, after that...
31:30 RM: Yes, or European for that matter, but say someone from Japan, may be a little bit more difficult to understand the... the sort of terms I use and all that and the imagery.
31:37 K: Obviously.
31:38 RM: So I mean, that’s a form of... is that the sort of thing you mean?
31:43 JM: Yes, it’s the form through which perceptions must go through, filter through.
31:48 K: Sir look, I understand French, Italian and Spanish. When they talk in French, I understand; there is no blockage, there is no filter. I don’t understand this question.
32:00 JM: It’s not a blockage... it’s not a blockage.
32:02 GS: It is the... Would you accept the word framework?
32:05 JM: Yes. Yes.
32:07 GS: For example, sir... framework rather than prejudice. For example, if there is a person who was a political activist, a violent political activist and organiser from his youth, and who has killed and cheated and done all kinds of things – The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, that kind of deal – are you able to talk with that particular person?
32:27 K: (Laughs) Of course, sir.
32:28 GS: On what basis? What experience do you have...?
32:30 K: First of all, he comes to see me; I don’t go to see him. He thinks I’m a nut to be convinced, so he comes to see me. So he is willing to listen to what I have to say. And I am willing to listen to what he has to say. I have met many of them that way. I have no frame... I want to understand you, why should I have a framework about it? Why can’t we make it simple?
33:02 GS: Yes, I could take an example, if I may. I have a friend, whom you also know, who is a very good, accomplished musician; he lives in Benares. He had promised a number of things. He had said he wanted to come to Bangalore, I must arrange an invitation. With a considerable amount of difficulty, we arranged a number of dates and he said, ‘I am coming on this particular day and then stay for six weeks, and I’ll give several seminars and you must pay me airfare,’ etc., etc. Everything is arranged; I check back and forth, make sure everything... 33:34 He comes; three days later he says, ‘Now, by the way, I have to go to Madras because Subhalakshmi asked me to go,’ so he has to go. He goes and then he says, ‘I don’t really know when I can come back. But I think I’ll try to come back.’ Now, I find it completely impossible to understand – and he’s a very good friend of mine and cherished, very dear friend of mine – I cannot understand why he would act that particular way. I try to put myself into his place. I just don’t understand.
34:01 K: He was using you. Why...? What’s the difficulty?
34:05 GS: Why would he want to...?
34:07 K: Why not?
34:08 GS: He could have said that, ‘Look, I want to come for three days and I want you to...’
34:11 K: I can’t answer about him. But you are saying do I act that way?
34:15 GS: No, what I’m saying is that if any of my scientific colleagues, if they said such a thing and did such a thing, I wouldn’t even want to talk to them afterwards because it is just understood that you don’t do things like that. Here, he did it, and I don’t... He doesn’t feel guilty about it.
34:31 K: So what is the real...? I don’t...
34:35 GS: What I’m saying is that I find it impossible to comprehend how he does it. But in the artistic world apparently people do this all the time.
34:41 K: Yes.
34:42 JM: You’re supposing that there’s a key and if you had it, you could then... his behaviour would form a pattern which you’d then understand. You see, learning to...
34:49 GS: Was this the kind of thing you were asking?
34:52 JM: Sort of. Let me... I’ll try to explain what I was meaning. At lunch I had a talk with David, and we were talking really about this kind of thing, about what would count as either of us accepting or rejecting, and then there was a blank because we really weren’t getting clear – or at least I wasn’t getting clear – just what was at issue, you know, when we’re arguing about... I mean, he’s telling me that I’m letting my Aristotelian-based concepts get in the way of... – you know, and so on – and I’m trying to understand what he’s meaning 35:21 and I want to understand it – it’s not as if there’s any hostility between us, you see, there is... – and it suddenly dawned on me that maybe the framework that David’s come to accept about thinking about the world and about all the sorts of things we were talking about here, the very framework is, in a sense – I don’t know how strong to put it – say, as a first stab, incompatible with mine. That is, it was difficult to see what for David would count as a bit of, well, a bit of insight on my part that would lead him to want to revise his framework, not completely reject it, but revise it. 36:10 And then I started to think, ‘Well, it seems to me that there’s a sense in which...’ Well, then I started thinking of a lot of things; I mean, Liz and I went down to a society called the Psionic Medicine Society one day last year to give a talk, and it was clear that there was absolutely no possibility of communication. And that they looked at us with an enlightened look in their eyes and said, ‘You know, if only you had experienced Jesus Christ, you’d understand what we’re saying,’ and at that point I just stopped talking, because I realised that any more talk on my part would create hostility, so I stopped talking. 36:45 Now, it’s not like that here, thank goodness. (Laughter) You see, I’m wondering whether, once this view has been seen or – in using your words that you used this morning – once we perceive this whole view, whether there’s a possibility of... Remember now, the view’s there. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I have grasped it as deeply as you have and as you have, whether we could, after the view has suddenly, in a flash if you want, become clear, we can apply our critical faculties to it, to begin to question it, to see how it relates...
37:22 K: Of course, sir; of course, I have done that. Of course.
37:25 JM: Well, it seems to me then that there’s barriers that are being put up, that are there perhaps, that are inherent in this framework, which are preventing other people like me who don’t share that framework completely, from...
37:39 FC: Aren’t we just talking about the difficulties with words and verbal communications? No, no...
37:46 JM: No. No, we’re not. It’s a much deeper issue.
37:49 FC: To me, it is obvious that words are ambiguous, and the ambiguity arises from your personal history because you associate words with different things than I, because you had a different history. This is your framework and as long as we communicate verbally, there will always be this slight difference.
38:10 JM: No, but we... but you and I... I mean, we all of us communicate... Look, we could find... There is some level or other on which all of us can communicate. We might say, ‘Oh, I’m hungry, let’s go and have something to eat,’ that’s a level and we can start from there.
38:20 FC: Yes. Yes.
38:22 JM: So words aren’t all that ambiguous, and if you were to be symbolised as one circle of a Venn diagram and me as another, it’s not as if we’re completely non-touching, we’re overlapping; so there is an area of...
38:31 FC: But the essential things we are talking about here belong to these parts which are ambiguous and where we have difficulties.
38:36 DB: I wanted to answer the point which Julian raised before, because we were discussing over lunch. And I think the point involves this question, you see, that I think Kant has said, there are certain necessary forms of human perception which have space and time and causality and necessity, various modalities, which... and that human perception is not possible outside that. Now, the other point is the question of the Aristotelian logic. And I thought I would mention, you know, I was at a conference recently, I met some people who were very familiar with Aristotle, and they said that Aristotle did not actually hold to Aristotelian logic; that he said Aristotelian logic... 39:20 – I should explain to people what it is, in case they don’t know. Let’s say there’s a rule in logic which is that – the rule of non-contradiction – which says, A is not... between A and not-A there is no mean. It’s either A or not-A. It’s roughly that.
39:36 JM: Yes, it is not the case that – brackets – (A and not-A).
39:39 DB: Yes. I mean, that’s the more technical way of putting it, but the... Now, this was enunciated first by Aristotle, as far as is known, but Aristotle also said this rule only applies to the past and not to the future. (Laughs) Now, in other words... I was told [by] people who have really studied it, that that’s the case. The... In other words, to an action which is completed and in a sense gone, this logic applies. Now, in any situation where we can anticipate the future from the past the logic will also apply. 40:13 But I think we are in a situation where the future cannot be anticipated from the past – in other words, that’s what we are discussing now – and we could say, broadly speaking, that these rules of logic are not going to help us here. But it is necessary to listen without putting that framework in the way – I’m not saying it’s right or it’s wrong – but that this framework itself may prevent listening.
40:37 J: But now, what about the Kantian forms, because that’s more crucial to what we were...?
40:42 DB: Well, perhaps even they could... You see, could one suspend all frameworks?
40:45 JM: That is the point, you see.
40:47 DB: Well, that’s the question.
40:48 JM: I mean, Kant’s answer is, ‘No.’
40:49 DB: But how does he...?
40:50 JM: Because... he said, ‘Perception without forms is a blooming, budding... (inaudible)
40:51 DB: I know, that’s what he says; I know that. But, you see, that is a conclusion; that is, you see, Kant could more accurately say, ‘I know of no perception without the forms.’ I mean, that is as much as Kant is legitimately allowed to say. But, you see, he cannot say there is none because... he merely can say, ‘I know of none.’
41:15 BG: Is it not impossible to accept that there might be such a framework, and that this is what Krishnaji is...
41:21 K: Or there might not be a framework.
41:22 DB: Or there might not.
41:23 BG: Yes, or that there might not be.
41:24 JM: Well, you see, I mean, the point... I’ve already... I mean, I’ve got an inkling of what your framework is. I mean, I could actually list down a set of, you know, a set of statements – the truth of which have emerged during the talk – which I mustn’t violate in order to get into your framework.
41:38 DB: Well, I’m not...
41:39 JM: Now, those are your forms. Now, the point is if that’s true then why can’t we talk about those forms?
41:46 DB: You see, I think we’re not meeting, because you’re trying to say... you see, you have made some assumptions as to what my framework is on the basis of watching me.
41:59 K: Sir, he was asking a question.
42:03 DB: Yes.
42:04 GG: Well, I think Julian has a point – I think we all do operate from some framework of some kind and that this is inevitable – but I think it comes now to understanding the framework. And I’ve been asking myself, I have been trying to get in touch with why I feel so annoyed at you. (Laughter) And it has a number of roots. One of the things is that... when I said it to you before, you know, I feel that you don’t love me, I really feel... 42:46 I really feel that’s true; and I respond defensively to that and feel irritated. And I feel that I think I understand your framework. I think I’ve been there, but I never get the feeling that you’re willing to try on my framework, really. An example was, when you were talking just now about David’s framework, you said, ‘Well, you could put down, you know, the decision matrix, to make a decision...’
43:19 JM: No, it wouldn’t be that...
43:20 GG: ...but you were back in your own framework again. As soon as you start saying, ‘Well, I could decide about his framework,’ you were using your framework to make that decision.
43:30 DB: Right.
43:31 GG: I don’t think you get his framework, I don’t think you’ve tried it on; and until you try it on then you can’t decide about the two frameworks. That’s how different they are.
43:41 DB: Yes. Krishnamurti wants to say something.
43:43 K: Sir, may I say something? Do you know anything about meditation?
43:48 JM: Yes, but not the sort of… the sort of meditation that you’ve said that you didn’t like.
43:55 K: No. Do you know anything about meditation?
43:57 JM: Yes. Yes.
43:59 K: What kind?
44:00 JM: I don’t know the name of it, but the sort of meditation I’m familiar with is the sort of meditation that first... well, the process of meditation I’m familiar with is you focus on something and then you...
44:11 K: Ah yes. That’s the concentration...
44:13 JM: Yes, the concentration type of meditation.
44:14 K: Now, I want to tell you something. I say that’s not meditation. Now, there is no framework. I say that’s not meditation, and therefore please listen to what I say, and when you listen don’t bring in that framework.
44:31 JM: Right.
44:34 K: You want to find out what another person says about meditation, so you must be free – not, ‘You must,’ you understand? – freedom from a frame, from your framework. That’s all we are saying.
44:47 JM: That’s a good example, because it’s easy... When one’s talking about something as specific as meditation...
44:53 K: I am talking of that.
44:55 JM: Yes. Now, I could easily relax my view about what counts as meditation, and I could say, ‘Right, this focus method of meditating is not what you’re talking about, so I’m going to relax that’...
45:06 K: And the same thing: please listen about pleasure.
45:08 JM: Yes.
45:09 K: Don’t put it into a framework, it’s...
45:12 JM: Yes, yes. But, you see, we’re talking now really then about meta-frameworks.
45:16 K: No, no! (Laughs)
45:20 JM: And that I can’t relax; and that I agree with... I mean, I think... not that there is anything historically important about...
45:25 GS: Could I ask a question about this?
45:28 K: Please, sir.
45:29 GS: At this point where you tell him that, ‘The meditation which you considered, that is not true meditation — meditation is this.’ Is he not entitled to ask you, as I was about to ask you...
45:40 K: Of course, sir.
45:41 GS: ...are you now redefining the word – saying that the other meditation is not the true meditation – are you ascribing a new meaning to the word meditation?
45:49 K: No. I would go into it. I would go into the whole idea of concentration, what is involved in concentration.
45:57 GS: No, no. What I am trying to say is that... ask is that, we are not asking the question whether this is more useful, more inclusive...
46:06 K: Ah, no, no.
46:08 GS: ...more a genuine framework, he could ask the question, ‘When you say that that is not meditation, are you now enlarging the scope?’ Therefore, this is not meditation... It’s like very much if I were to tell something about physics, then David could say, ‘No, no, that’s not really the physics; true physics is one when you can see this and that together,’ or... So, in this case, are you expanding the definition of meditation or saying that that is in fact incorrect? If you concentrate and...
46:33 K: That’s all! That’s all.
46:35 GS: That is incorrect?
46:36 K: Incorrect. Therefore – wait sir – when you realise it is incorrect and if you are interested in meditation, then you listen. You have no framework.
46:47 HT: Will you show us why it is incorrect?
46:51 K: Ah yes, sir; that’s different. I mean, I’ll show it to you, but that’s...
46:57 JM: Could the process go the other way? Just... because... Could it...? Could we switch it around a bit, and I could say to you – or Sudarshan who knows it better than me, perhaps say – ‘I’m going to teach you about meditation.’
47:08 K: Right.
47:09 JM: And you say, ‘Right.’ And we start talking about the concentration type of meditation...
47:13 K: Yes.
47:14 JM: ...and you say, ‘No, no, no, it’s not what I mean.’
47:16 K: No, no.
47:17 JM: And I say...
47:18 K: I wouldn’t be so foolish as that. I would listen to you. I would say, ‘No...’
47:23 JM: But then after I’m finished. Now, I’m finished talking and you’ve grasped what I’ve said.
47:28 K: Oh, absolutely.
47:29 JM: All right. But you don’t agree.
47:32 K: No! This is not a question of agreement or disagreement; it’s a question of seeing if concentration, which means exclusion, will, effort...
47:46 JM: Effort. Right.
47:50 K: ...conflict...
47:53 JM: And that...
47:55 K: ...and resistance. All that’s implied in that word.
48:00 JM: And I say it could be successful.
48:02 K: No, we’re not talking of success.
48:04 JM: Well, but we are. I mean...
48:06 K: Ah, no, no.
48:07 RM: Isn’t this a quibble about words, now, about – you know? – different contexts of the word meditation?
48:09 FC: Yes, I was just going to say I’m really lost here, because for me this really is a question of words. And I could very well tell my friend in London, ‘We were talking about meditation and, you see, meditation in the Krishnamurti sense is that and that, and meditation in some other Indian sense means that and that.’ The one is your framework, the other one is the traditional Indian framework. For me, both are frameworks.
48:32 K: Ah, no, no, no.
48:33 RM: You said you didn’t have any frameworks.
48:35 K: You see... No sir, I’m not talking of frameworks. I say...
48:38 FC: But you’re using meditation in a very specific sense.
48:41 K: No, I... Sir, you are...
48:43 DB: Could we start...?
48:44 K: I have said I go into... if you want to go into it…
48:49 FC: Yes, please.
48:50 K: ...I say... I first take concentration. I go into it. I go into the question of control.
48:57 FC: Yes.
48:58 K: I go into the question of effort, will, and I show it to you how there is conflict in all that...
49:12 FC: Yes.
49:13 K: ...how there is choice in all that, how there is direction in all that. Where there is direction, there must be time. What sir? (Laughs)
49:22 GS: Yes, I agree.
49:25 K: So I show you all this. It’s for you... I say all that is really a form of self-perpetuation in a different level. Because you are struggling, fighting, all the rest of it; you have moved to a higher level of the same...
49:50 FC: But then, this supposes that we both know at the beginning of the conversation the meaning of the word meditation.
49:58 K: Yes, meditation means what Dr Bohm pointed out this morning; and also it means to think, to ponder over, to think together, all the rest of it. But if you stick to your framework and I stick to my framework, then there is no communication at all.
50:16 DB: Oh, you want to say something?
50:18 JM: You see, this is what I think Sudarshan was getting at: if we mean the same thing by meditation and if the procedures and the aims and the goals and the presuppositions of both our methods are different, then... but we mean the same thing, then we ought to argue, be capable of arguing – in the non-pejorative sense of arguing – about... I was going to say rightness and wrongness, but we ought to at least – never mind that – we ought to compare and contrast the two types of methods; if we mean the same thing by meditation.
50:53 DB: Well, just a moment. Yes. I just wanted to say that that implies a framework in which you compare and contrast.
50:58 JM: Yes, but...
50:59 FC: That’s what we’re talking about.
51:01 RM: I wonder whether, you know, we’re getting into difficulties because – over the question of definitions – you can look up the definition of meditation in different dictionaries, you’ll get different answers. But, I mean, could we go into meditation the way you think it... you know, your view of meditation, forgetting other religions, other systems of meditation...
51:20 K: Ah, no, no. No. You can’t. You can’t say, ‘Well, forget Zen-Buddhism, forget Indian meditation, forget transcendental meditation.’ They all use this word. They all say, ‘This is the method.’ They all say, ‘You will find God’ – or whatever they find – ‘You will experience...’ — they all say this.
51:41 RM: But most people here haven’t had much experience of any form of meditation, so it doesn’t have much meaning to them to talk about – you know? – Indian meditation or other things; just one or two people know...
51:49 JM: Yes, but we’re talking now more about methodology, and you say meditation...
51:52 K: No, no...
51:53 RM: But when you’re... (inaudible) ...more on meditation than methodology, in fairness.
51:54 David Peat: Could I...? The Chairman is pointing at me. The Chairman is pointing at me. (Laughs)
51:59 DB: Could we have order here, please? (Laughter) I just want to say in Ottawa, in our gallery, there was a piece of sculpture bought and it caused a lot of controversy; and I’ve seen people go in – two or three people – and they go in and they say, ‘I can’t understand this,’ and they argue about it. And sometimes they don’t even look at the sculpture; they are just arguing about something they’re not even taking the chance to see. And I feel we are beginning to do that now.
52:20 K: (Laughs) I’m afraid, sir.
52:23 DB: Yes, could we... you know, with more order. (Pause)
52:28 K: Do you want me to go into the question of meditation?
52:33 GS: Yes. But it seems to me there is some unfinished business.
52:37 Q: Yes.
52:38 K: May be.
52:39 JM: Huge, I think.
52:40 GS: May I say a couple of words, so if you think you would like to clear it up. I have undertaken four different kinds of meditation: one with my master and three with sort of intermediate-level teachers. One of them makes use of a mantra; something that was given under due processes of law, so to say, by a certain person and he said – I was very disappointed when he finally let me into the secret of what the mantra was; it looked like... you know, I thought it was something like...
53:10 K: (Laughs) Coca-cola would do.
53:11 GS: And I practised it and he said, ‘This is not going to give you anything; you will feel a certain sense of peace.’ And sure enough, I didn’t get anything else (laughs); I felt a certain sense of peace. Then there was a kind of meditation in which I was supposed to concentrate on a certain entity, precious stone, and it said that, ‘You will feel a certain sense of power.’ And I have... I feel it, maybe because the man who said it is a person whom I have some respect for. Third one is Transcendental Meditation which it said, ‘Don’t fuss about it; you know, sort of have a gentle preference for a certain sound but if other things come, it’s all right. 53:51 If you feel that it has been a waste, then also it is all right; it doesn’t matter how you feel, it is still effective, like a sort of horseshoe that you put. But my master tells me, ‘No. True meditation is none of these things; true meditation is union, and the union in which you find that you are the witness to the eternal activities of everything. Don’t consider... take the doership from one thought to another thought, etc., etc.’ With him, I cannot argue; I mean, he is my master.
54:20 K: He wouldn’t... (laughs)
54:22 GS: I either accept it or I don’t accept it. But...
54:25 K: You... If I was your master, you would accept it. (Laughs) You wouldn’t argue with me. (Laughter)
54:29 GS: Yes. Yes, I would not argue. Even now I find a little hesitation to argue with you, but you did permit it. (Laughter) And in this kind of activity, there is… nothing is promised but, in fact, it is the very nature of existence. And that meditation does not involve that you take your time off from your routine duties...
54:51 K: Of course, of course.
54:52 GS: You go about when you sleep, as you have your bath, as you eat, as you argue with other people, and cut in front of somebody else’s car — all these things that you do and at the same time you continue this kind of thing. Now, clearly, the first three there are differences in method; the fourth one is not a case of saying that the other one is not true meditation. What is then meant is that true meditation is a new phrase, not a phrase which is to be substituted in place of… It is a different kind; it is an entirely different approach. I could either say that, in fact, this is the only meditation; the other things are sort of games.
55:27 K: Phoney.
55:28 GS: Phoney, yes. You know, it’s more the power of suggestion or the power of, you know, magic of a certain kind. But the other three, there is a question of comparison; and you can take two different people, I mean, a Transcendental Meditation man and a Buddhist meditation man, and they could argue about which is the right method. But in this case you are talking about the same thing. The fourth one, you don’t argue because my master simply defined that, ‘This is the true meditation,’ and therefore I don’t argue with him about semantics. 55:57 He said that is it; and I don’t compare the two, and I see that they cannot be compared. Now, I think I speak also for Julian when I say that it appears that when you say that the true meditation is a certain kind, for example in this case, we are no longer talking about, ‘Is this meditation and that meditation the same? ’ it is simply you are pointing out that this is a better kind of meditation...
56:20 K: No, no, no, no.
56:22 GS: ...in fact, the only possible kind of...
56:25 K: No. (Laughs) I am pointing out... May I go into it, sir, now? Do you want to discuss meditation?
56:33 DP: Yes. Yes, please.
56:35 GS: Yes, anyway we wanted to...
56:37 K: What sir?
56:38 GS: No, I mean, Robin had earlier said that we must talk about meditation, so it has come naturally to the point.
56:45 K: Do you want to go into it, sirs? I mean...
56:52 Q: Yes.
56:54 K: All right. It’s up to you. (Pause) First of all, sir, meditation is not something that you do for ten minutes a day and forget for the rest of the day. It is right through life. It is establishing right relationship with another. It is establishing behaviour, all that; that’s part of meditation. Right? It’s not divorced from relationship; it’s not divorced from daily activity of greed, envy — you have to understand all that and go beyond all that. That means a life that is tremendously orderly. 58:04 Right sir? Orderly in the sense, in yourself there is no disorder, no contradiction: saying one thing, doing another; thinking one thing and acting another. So there is no contradiction. So you have to understand there all that. Right? Right sir? I don’t know if you follow all this. Unless you do that, you can’t go further. If I don’t know the meaning of the word love, I cannot go any further, in meditation. And if there is any quality in me of hate, antagonism, I have to understand it and go beyond it in daily life. 59:10 That’s part of meditation – right? – the whole... then I begin. After establishing a righteous behaviour – please, I’m using an old-fashioned word, and I hope you don’t mind – not according to a pattern, but having understood what is disorder, in myself, in society, in my relationship, etc., etc., and in the understanding and the perception of it; not I as the observer and disorder the observed, but only the observation of disorder without the observer. That’s part of meditation. After establishing all that (laughs), then I have to go into the question of thought, if you are interested. 1:00:10 Thought is time, thought is a material process; thought is the response of memory, experience, knowledge. And can that thought – which is constantly functioning, chattering, chattering, chattering – stop naturally? Which means sees its own limitation and therefore has an insight into its own necessity of ending itself, except in action, except in technological... daily life. Can it do it? I have to find... That’s part of meditation. And can that thought, which assumes the authority of the controller – because thought is a fragment among many other fragments – that thought assumes the authority as the introspector, as the investigator, as the observer, dominant over the other fragments, can that thought see itself as the whole? 1:01:28 I don’t know... it may all sound Greek. Oh, some of you know Greek (laughs). So can thought come to an end, which means time? You follow, sir? All that is involved in it. And it also implies is the observer different from the observed? Or there is only the seeing and not the observer seeing? Right? And also involved is the controller and the controlled. Is there a difference between the controller and the controlled? Or there is only the controlled, not the controller. The controller is the controlled; the thinker is the thought. 1:02:34 (Pause) So control disappears, right from the beginning, not at the end. I see a beautiful car, a beautiful woman or a beautiful jewel, and attraction – you follow? – all the implied... and no control – which doesn’t mean I go and buy cars; I haven’t got the money – no control. I don’t know... All that’s implied in the question of control. Controller... the entity who controls is the controlled. The observer is the observed. So you remove totally conflict, because there is no division between the observer and the observed. 1:03:32 I don’t... Right? So when you say, as you said, sir, meditation is focusing your attention, concentration, I say, ‘Look what you’re doing,’ that is, you are dividing the controller and the controlled. Therefore, you are introducing a factor of conflict; introducing a factor of will: ‘I...’ therefore resistance. Therefore you are not aware of the resistance. But there is an attention which is not concentration, but that very attention becomes concentration; it is not a resistance. Right? May I go on? 1:04:37 No, I want to... And... now comes the... the repetition of words brings a certain quietness to the mind. But that is not peace; that’s not real silence. It’s an induced silence. I can take a pill; I can take a tranquilliser and my mind is extraordinarily quiet. So I say that’s... that is... why play tricks with yourself? And the repetition of a word, mantra, which is the sound, first you utter it loudly, whatever that mantram is – Coca-cola, or God knows what – you repeat that word, loudly, then gradually silently, and it brings you a sense of otherness. 1:05:53 Right sir? And look what you’re doing. I say you might just as well take a drug. You want a result. Right? You want to have an experience; you have a motive. And the motive is either satisfaction, pleasure, gratification, or the desire to experience something extraordinary. Right? I don’t know if you’re interested in all this. Therefore, why do you want to experience something extraordinary? Because you are bored with your life. You have had sex, you have had drugs, you have had power, position, now you want something superior. 1:06:42 You’re still in the same pattern. Right? All right sir? So I say, look what... is that meditation? Which is furthering of your own pleasure at a different level, which is the continuation of the self, perhaps at a sublimated level but it is still the self. And thought can project something and call it sacred. Right? I used to know a man – if you’re interested, I’ll tell you; am I... can I go on with all this? Are you interested in all this? – I used to know a man who, one day, he was walking on the beach and there was a piece of wood, washed up by the sea – it must have been there for years and years – and he picked it up, and it had an extraordinary shape — extraordinary. 1:07:50 He showed it to me. It was quite a marvellous shape, beautifully polished, with that wood; it was teak, grain, it was really an extraordinary object. So he took it home and put it on a mantelpiece or on a table. And he looked at it and said, ‘What a marvellous thing that is.’ And one day, casually, he put a flower in front of it. And after a couple of years that became the sacred thing; nobody could touch it – you follow, sir? – and he called that, ‘That’s my God.’ So thought can project any vision, any symbol, any figure, any image, and call it sacred. 1:08:53 Right? And I say, look, it is still the projection of that thought which is fragmentary, wanting... and so on, so on. I show that to you. I say is that meditation? And is there anything sacred in life? Nothing created by thought is sacred. Thought can think it is sacred. Is there anything sacred? Which means sacred, which is untouched by thought; sacred which is not created by the hand or by the mind. Because without that sacredness, compassion becomes sublimated pleasure. I don’t know if you’re following, if it interests you. 1:10:09 So in meditation, there is no will – because we went into that – there is no direction, because the moment you have direction, there is time; direction implies a goal which you have fixed, according to your conditioning, fear, pleasure, hope and despair. Therefore, you’re still within the area of your own self and imagination and conflict. Therefore, no direction, no will, which doesn’t mean I am doing ‘Thy will.’ Right? And time; is there psychological time at all – except the chronological time, there is; I have to go next week to Rome and India and so on but is there psychological time? 1:11:18 Me becoming better – you follow? – or there is only the ending of me every day? That is, to find the truth of it not just the imagination of it, not the verbal statement of it. Then can the mind be completely still, not chattering? (Pause) A silence that’s not induced, a silence that is not brought about through discipline, control, suppression, a desired effect, because then it’s merely an effect, not a reality. So can the mind, with all its chatterings, with its problems, with its vanities, this and – you know? – all that, can all that subside? 1:12:30 Not for a couple of minutes — subside entirely. Otherwise the mind is not silent. And if it is not silent, the mind cannot possibly understand what is sacred. Not the images which thought has created in churches or in temples and so on. So all that and much more is meditation. Beginning from behaviour, affection, love, relationship, the relationship to society, the transformation of myself, and affecting the social consciousness and so on, so on — all that is meditation. And going beyond the me and with all its problems. 1:13:50 (Pause) And if you ask me, ‘Have you done this? ’ – that’s your inevitable question – ‘Or is it just imagination, just a speculative nonsense?’ If I say, ‘Yes,’ you will take it either belief or incredulity, or hoping that I’ve got it (laughs) because then you will also might get it. I wouldn’t talk about it if I didn’t... if it wasn’t... I am not a hypocrite and I’d hate to be a hypocrite to myself, not to you. Therefore, to me, what I say is so.
1:14:38 GS: Is it proper to ask, was there a time when you were not in this state? Because, without asking, we assume you are in this state not that you have come to this state.
1:14:56 K: You don’t know, sir. You see, my difficulty is you cannot know what that state is. It’s not a state, it is a movement. It’s a movement which is not in time; time means movement. But this is not... This is the movement which is... – (laughs) I don’t know how to put it – it’s not a time movement, from here to there. And your question is, ‘Has it always been there with you, from childhood?’ Is that it, sir?
1:15:37 GS: I could redefine my question, that there are certain physical conditions like, for example, certain kind of one-way glasses. When you are outside, you see an inside and outside; when you are inside, you see through it without any trouble. My information, my personal experience about unusual state, meditative state, is a state in which, when you are in it, you couldn’t imagine any other state; there is only that state.
1:16:05 K: Ah no. Sir, let me tell... You cannot be in that state or imagine the state or experience that state. To experience means there must be an experiencer.
1:16:25 GS: At this point, I have to fall back on his problems and then say...
1:16:31 K: I know, sir; I know, I know, I know.
1:16:32 GS: ...you are depriving me of all phrases that I could use; you are using other phrases which I do not...
1:16:38 K: Must. No! Ah no. I say you know nothing about it. You cannot know about it till you lead... till you begin from the beginning: righteous behaviour, relationship, conduct – you follow? – it’s a whole basket. You can’t take part of the basket and say, ‘I’ve got it.’
1:17:07 JM: You see, following this, you said of what you... I understood, I really did understand what you were saying; I may have not grasped the significance but I could now contrast it with those forms of meditation which, before today, I was familiar with. And you say things like – and I’m repeating you – ‘Repetition of words brings silence to the mind,’ and then you say, ‘That’s not real silence.’ Now...
1:17:29 K: Have you tried repetition of words?
1:17:30 JM: Yes. I have. Yes.
1:17:33 K: It does produce...
1:17:36 JM: It’s terrific. I love it.
1:17:39 K: Ah! (Laughter)
1:17:41 JM: But wait, let me finish what I wanted to... Now, you say it’s not real silence. I say to you, ‘Well, I’ve never experienced this real silence, so to me it is real silence.’ And you say, ‘Come with me and I’ll show you real silence.’
1:17:58 K: Yes. I’ll show it to you now, sir. Listen to me. Listen to me. You know the silence between two noises?
1:18:08 JM: The silence between two noises. No, I don’t quite...
1:18:13 K: Oh, come on, sir. There are two noises going on – one noise and... – in between there is silence.
1:18:20 JM: If I’m in between the two noises...
1:18:22 K: Yes, yes. Yes, of course.
1:18:28 JM: Then I’m hearing both noises, I’m not... there’s no silence.
1:18:32 GS: Not continually.
1:18:33 RM: Consecutive noises.
1:18:34 JM: Oh, I see what you mean.
1:18:35 GS: Temporarily.
1:18:36 JM: Okay, sorry. Yes, yes.
1:18:38 K: That’s not silence, is it? It’s like peace between two wars.
1:18:40 JM: Yes.
1:18:41 K: That’s not silence, is it?
1:18:42 JM: No.
1:18:46 K: Now, between two notes that’s another kind of silence, isn’t it? The silence of an evening, when the birds are just going to bed and there is a peculiar silence in the world. That’s all external. And there is silence between two thoughts; an interval. And thought is only waiting to spring on that interval. That’s not silence, is it?
1:19:37 JM: All right, I will... I mean, yes, okay, I’ll agree.
1:19:42 K: Ah no. No, no! Not agree. (Laughs) Wait, wait. A silence that’s induced, through discipline, control, through mesmerism, through self-hypnotism, through drugs, through a repetition of words — that’s not silence, it is an induced state.
1:20:01 JM: It’s an induced state of silence.
1:20:04 K: It’s an induced state of...
1:20:05 JM: But it’s still silence.
1:20:07 K: Yes, all right. Call it silence; induced silence. Why do you want to induce it? You like it.
1:20:18 JM: Yes.
1:20:19 K: It’s a pleasure. Therefore, you’re back again in the realm of pleasure and fear of losing it.
1:20:25 JM: Okay. Now, can I make two points? We’re just what you... First of all, you are using argument now with me.
1:20:30 K: No, no. I’m not argument... I’m pointing...
1:20:33 JM: Yes, you are. You were using... You were trying to persuade me...
1:20:36 K: I am not! I am...
1:20:38 JM: ...that my view of silence presupposes wrong views.
1:20:39 K: No sir. I said there are various induced form of silences.
1:20:44 JM: Yes, but... I agree. And then you said, ‘But why should you want to induce it?’ And I said...
1:20:50 K: Because that’s pleasure.
1:20:51 JM: Yes, yes.
1:20:52 K: And I say, then you are afraid to lose it. Of course, sir, when you enjoy something tremendously, God, you want to keep it.
1:21:00 JM: Well, but then, I mean, there reaches a stage when I’m doing it that I want to stop, because I want to get on, so I mean, it’s not a fear. I decide...
1:21:09 K: No, if you really... If it meant something tremendous to you, you’re afraid to lose it, like the Catholic[s] are afraid to lose their belief.
1:21:18 JM: No, but it’s like your example of the silence between two notes: I like it, but it’s between two states of mundane living, as it were.
1:21:27 K: So you... What I am trying to say, it is a motivated – if I can use that American word, motivated – motivated silence. Where there is a motive, there is a time element involved in it. What has a cause is still of time, therefore that silence is periodic, is changeable.
1:21:50 JM: Episodic.
1:21:51 K: Episodic. I don’t know these words. Episodic. Right. And I say to... why go through all this trouble? Take a pill. It’s as good as that silence as the other. But you don’t like pill because it is external, chemical, or whatever reasons.
1:22:20 JM: No, that is... Look, I don’t know how far I ought to pursue this. I mean, I think it’s important, but I think... I mean – you know? – one would have to...
1:22:31 K: So I say to you – wait, wait – so I say to you, ‘My friend, there is a silence which is the essence of creation – ‘Ah, ah, ah’ – that silence has no motive. It cannot be induced; when once it is... when the mind is silent of that... then the heavens are open to you. Those are all phrases. And you say, ‘Now, how do I get it?’ I say, that’s a wrong question, because you want to get it.
1:23:10 JM: Right — it implies effort, etc., and that’s no good. Right.
1:23:14 K: So how do you come by it? I say, begin at the beginning. First step is the last step. And you won’t do that, you want that silence. Right sir?
1:23:30 GS: Yes. I don’t know whether I should say, ‘Yes,’ or, ‘No.’ (Laughter) If I say, ‘Yes,’ you’ll... It seems to me that you railroad us, as the Americans say. You put us onto a siding and then abandon us there. Because we agree with you with regard to arguments up to a certain point, but clearly you have a particular direction in which you are taking us, showing us, but then you say that, ‘But you begin at the beginning, because the first step is the last step.’ Why should we listen to you? Because...
1:24:08 K: Don’t.
1:24:09 GS: No, no. Because you say, ‘This condition, isn’t it full of conflict, isn’t it un-aesthetic...’
1:24:14 K: Yes, quite.
1:24:15 GS: ...does it contain violence?’ Now, I could perhaps turn back the argument – there must be some flaw in it, because you are not so easily... – there must be... I could turn back the argument...
1:24:26 K: He’s flattering me. (Laughter)
1:24:28 GS: Yes. I’m hoping that at least this way... (Laughs) (Laughter) I could turn back the argument and then say, this desire to escape the conflict is in fact the entanglement. Why should I escape the conflict? This is the way it is.
1:24:46 K: No wait. No! I say it’s not an escape. I said conflict... All right. Conflict implies duality: the me and the not me; conflict implies the observer and the observed. And as long as you live in that conflict, you will have violence, various subtle forms of violence. It is the exaggeration of the self and the world is destroyed by the self. You see it; I show it to you. And either you say, ‘Go to hell’ [or] ‘I think that you are right and I’ll see what happens.’ There is no two ways about it.
1:25:28 GS: I’m afraid I lost the point.
1:25:34 K: Sir, I point out to you – as you put it on to me – you say, ‘Why shouldn’t I have conflict?’ If you enjoy it, you wouldn’t even ask it.
1:25:46 GS: Part of the conflict is that I like to listen to you.
1:25:53 K: Ah yes; you like it. (Laughs)
1:25:56 GS: I like the way of life that you have.
1:25:59 K: You like it.
1:26:00 GS: I also like Julian’s method of argumentation.
1:26:01 K: Yes, of course, you... I mean, you like conflict. Most people do. Because that is their tradition, it’s part of their culture, part of their education; they are conditioned to like conflict. And therefore bring about a society which is consumed by conflict: inequality, poverty – you follow? – all the whole structure of it. And if you like it, there is nothing more to be said.
1:26:29 GS: In the majority of daily or profane, non-sacred activities, it seems to me that I go through life neither causing conflict nor being concerned about conflict. When somebody is unkind to me I try to be a little tough with them; when somebody is nice to me, I try to enlarge the friendship.
1:26:49 K: (Laughs) Yes.
1:26:50 GS: He doesn’t insult me these days, so I am more friendly with him.
1:26:54 K: Yes sir. (Laughter)
1:26:56 GS: (Laughs) We stay together. And it seems to me I have no desire to change the world; I don’t want to escape this world; I am profoundly grateful to whomever, whoever, whatever is causing the situation in which I find the silence of the evening or the silence between thoughts or the silence when thoughts are coming and going; that too, you watch the thing and you simply say, ‘This is silence.’
1:27:18 K: Sir, if you enjoy it, if you don’t suffer from it, if you say, ‘This is life, it’s part of my life,’ then there is nothing more to be said.
1:27:30 GS: And yet I see you, who is a beautiful creature, you say that, ‘There is violence in the world. The world is going to trouble.’
1:27:40 K: Gone to the dogs. (Laughs)
1:27:42 GS: Going to the dogs. ‘And there is such cruelty of man to man, and the only way to change it is such and such.’ There is Bhagwan Buddha who said, ‘We must have compassion for all the creatures in the suffering; one must understand suffering.’ So I would like to understand what is it that you want to understand? What is it that...? Why is it that you want to remove the conflict from the world? I sound like a very uncompassionate person – it’s not really true – but I don’t...
1:28:12 K: (Laughs) What are you trying to tell me? Are you talking for the devil or what?
1:28:17 GS: No, I’m just asking, why should I even want to have no conflict?
1:28:24 K: But I am telling you, sir. If you like it, if it gives you profit – both financially and emotionally and intellectually – and if it gives you... all the rest of it, well, vas-y, go to it.
1:28:38 DB: Yes, I think...
1:28:40 JM: I’d like to tell you a fairy story that’ll throw a light – I’m sure it will throw a light – on the misunderstanding that’s going on. Once upon a time, I took a little cousin of mine to Harwell – which is the high energy particle physics lab near Oxford – to show him the mechanism. And on the way up I didn’t tell him anything about what he was going to see or how it works or anything; we talked about other things. We arrived there and the accelerator wasn’t on, so we went into the room and we saw this incredible, huge, circular piece of metal which I then explained was a magnet – he was very young, so I couldn’t go into the sort of detail that one would need to go into if you want to explain how it works – and he looked around and he was very impressed by all this very fancy, expensive machinery. 1:29:34 Then we went into another room which had a smaller pipe leading off to it, and there was a gantry on top of the pool. So we climbed up on the gantry, we went over the pool and we looked down and what we saw was a supersaturated vapour.
1:29:52 K: Supersaturated...? What...?
1:29:54 JM: Yes. It looked like...
1:29:56 K: Bubbling?
1:29:57 JM: Well, sort of cloudy, like...
1:30:00 K: Ah.
1:30:01 JM: And then I said to this little boy that I’m going to tell the technicians in the other big... where the accelerator is, to turn on the accelerator and then we’re going to see what happens here. So I do this. And after a few seconds this little boy gets very excited, because looking down from the gantry into the super-saturated vapour below he saw all sorts of traces, terrific traces. And he said, ‘What is that?’ And I gave him the conventional physics story. 1:30:35 I said that... I told him the story about how high energy particles are whipped around this accelerator very, very quickly, they’re then channelled off and as they channel off they go into the supersaturated vapour and what we’re seeing when we’re looking down now is the traces they’re leaving in the supersaturated vapour. I also say a little bit about... I begin to do a little bit of philosophy with him and I say, ‘Actually, we could never go down and peek underneath the vapour because the process of peeking will make the thing disappear.’ 1:31:09 And I have to be careful to use ordinary words. In other words, I try to impress on him that we could never, in principle, see the particles themselves but only the traces they leave in the vapour. He listens but he’s not too impressed. Then he tells me a story. He says, ‘Look, I don’t like your story. What’s happening down there is there are little green men...
1:31:28 K: Men. (Laughs)
1:31:30 JM: ...underneath and they’re playing football and they’re running around and their heads are making indentations on the supersaturated vapour below. And what we’re watching is a football game underneath the vapour.’ You know, I get puzzled by this. And it’s a... Oh yes, the important point is that his story is as complete and as consistent as my story.
1:31:48 K: Quite.
1:31:49 JM: So we have two stories, but the stories were sparked by the same observation, the same situation. Okay, well, I’ll end the story; it’s obvious... What’s happening here is this: we’re like the little boy and his story and my story. In other words, what could I do to convince the little boy that his story isn’t the right story? And why can’t he turn around and start convincing me that his story is the right story? Now...
1:32:17 K: Sir, we are not convincing each other.
1:32:19 JM: But, you see, there is a right story. In the physics example, there is a right story and there are criteria for us saying that the little... the football story is a wrong story; and the reason why his story is wrong is because in a wider context his story makes no sense when slotted into our conceptual scheme, which he would even accept if articulated simply enough. Now, my faith is that there is the sort of context that enables us to rule out his football story and rule my story the correct one... we ought to be able, sitting around this table 1:32:55 for a whole week, to at least be able to catch a glimpse of this conceptual scheme which will enable us to, if not rule one story right, ‘Yes,’ at least give us the sort of criteria that will make comparison meaningful to talk about.
1:33:10 K: I don’t… That’s it! It is not comparative. Compare with what? With your knowledge against my knowledge?
1:33:21 JM: No, no, no. With your view about meditation, for example, with my view; with David’s view of holism, with my view of, if you want...
1:33:28 K: Ah, ah. No! I say it’s not your view or my view; I went in...
1:33:31 JM: Or the view. There are two views.
1:33:33 K: No sir! You have misunderstood.
1:33:35 DS: No, I think that there really is... it comes down to the fact that your little boy, there’s no... neither one of those... Those stories could be compared because we would say they were second – I mean, just in line with what we’re talking about – that they would be second order. Both of them are in... We don’t really know what the immeasurable reality is. Both of them are stories.
1:33:57 K: No sir. No sir. Please, sir; just listen, sir.
1:34:01 JM: No, no, no, no.
1:34:03 K: I said, sir; please, sir.
1:34:04 JM: Sorry.
1:34:05 K: I said I am not comparing. I am not comparing your meditation against my meditation or his meditation. I said, look what you are doing – what you are doing – which is concentration, and see what is involved in it: conflict, direction, therefore time, resistance, therefore denying. And I say there is an attention which can concentrate, which can give attention to, and yet not be caught in conflict, in resistance and so on. That’s all. That’s not a comparison.
1:35:00 JM: No. What you’ve just done is elaborated your story; you’ve given more... you’ve embellished it more. You’ve told me what it is compatible with and what it isn’t compatible with.
1:35:11 K: No sir.
1:35:12 JM: Yes. Well, I mean, that’s fair enough; I mean, you shouldn’t disagree with that. That’s... I mean, in other words, you’ve told me what your form of meditation is consistent with, and I understand that.
1:35:25 K: Therefore, will you do it?
1:35:27 JM: It depends on whether I decide that I want to do it.
1:35:30 K: Ah, no! (Laughs) You see, sir...?
1:35:33 DB: (Inaudible) ...progress.
1:35:35 K: Professor...
1:35:36 Karl Pribram: I think your analogy is a very wrong analogy and I think maybe it gets at the problem. I think in this situation, you and Krishnamurti aren’t looking at the same supersaturated vapour. In your story, you’re both looking at the same thing; you and he aren’t looking at the same thing. I would say that you haven’t seen yet what he is talking about, and that’s the problem.
1:36:11 JM: But, I mean, it was agreed before – and that’s why I made the analogy – that meditation means the same thing. Now, I took that as a...
1:36:19 DB: No.
1:36:20 DS: No, I don’t think it was agreed.
1:36:22 K: No, no...
1:36:23 FC: No, we did agree that we meant the same thing by meditation and this was the starting point of the conversation, of the argument...
1:36:28 JM: And that’s like the observation.
1:36:29 FC: ...because otherwise we couldn’t even talk about it. We did agree about that.
1:36:32 K: So sir, I said that and are you willing to see that concentration is not – what shall we say? – is not meditation; it is just a schoolboy learning to concentrate on a book or on a picture or on a phrase.
1:36:56 JM: Does it follow from that that the mantra-type meditation, for example, is wrong?
1:37:02 K: Which?
1:37:03 JM: The mantra?
1:37:04 K: Oh, I said, look what... I don’t... Sir, I said, look, I know thousands of people who practised this, who have talked to me. There’s Maharishi Yogi, who goes around and you pay thirty five dollars or twenty dollars and he gives you a mantra and you repeat that. And I say good Lord, is that meditation? I don’t know; I ask. And I say... I’ve listened to it; people have come to me saying, ‘You must do it. You answer...’ etc., fight me. I say, ‘Just let’s calm down. Don’t give me money, just talk with me. Is that meditation? What are you doing? Repeating mechanically a word, hoping thereby to experience some transcendental...’ etc., 1:37:55 etc., etc. I say... I go into it, very carefully: the effect of sound, the effect of music, the effect of a bird singing, the effect among the leaves, the breeze — I go into the whole of that. And I say that’s not... that is just a form of... a great, heightened amusement. Call it spiritual... I don’t care what you call it. And he says to me, ‘You’re wrong; I’m right.’ I said, ‘All right.’ I don’t want to convince him. I don’t compare it. I say look what you’re doing.
1:38:35 GS: But it works.
1:38:40 K: Works?
1:38:42 GS: It does produce a kind of quietness.
1:38:46 K: I...
1:38:47 GS: It is a limited quietness, it is a limited activity, it takes twenty minutes per day and a hundred and twenty dollars for the first time... (Laughter) or forty minutes and...
1:38:56 JM: You could cheat and get a friend to give you a mantra and...
1:39:00 GS: Apparently, it’s not kosher; I mean...
1:39:02 JM: Yes, I know but you could... (Laughter)
1:39:06 K: Sir, sir, may I... No, you must protect the mantra idea a little bit...
1:39:09 GS: Right. It cannot be given.
1:39:11 K: No sir. First of all, the teacher who gave you the mantra, you had to live with him, for years. He had to know you. He has to study your character, your behaviour, your way of life, your... the way you looked at women, the way you looked at trees, the way you looked at other people, your relationship with other... Then, after many years, and you had to go through special processes; it isn’t just thirty five dollars and you go and do it. (Laughter)
1:39:43 JM: Well, you see, I agree with Pribram – too bad he’s not here – that... I mean, one would... (Laughter)
1:39:48 K: Who?
1:39:49 JM: Professor Pribram, there, he’s sitting there.
1:39:50 DP: He’s disappeared.
1:39:51 K: Ah yes. He’s there. He is there.
1:39:54 JM: His aura’s there. Elizabeth Ferris: (Laughs) His aura is there.
1:39:56 JM: I mean, I would tend... I mean, I don’t know whether he would use the word define, but the state one achieves when meditating could be physiologically measured. And I think this is all we need for our purposes. In other words, the sort... one reaches a state that could be physiologically measured, which is qualitatively different from the other states; it’s even given a name. I mean, if you’re lucky, you could get into a state called the alpha-state, which is different from the ordinary, waking, aroused state.
1:40:23 DP: Well, what’s the point about all this?
1:40:25 JM: Because it’s relaxed, it’s a relaxing state...
1:40:29 K: Yes, that... Agreed. It’s a relaxing...
1:40:32 JM: It rejuvenates you. Better...
1:40:34 DS: That’s the point. I think he’s... Krishnamurti, I don’t think is... I think the real... where we get hung up on is when we say meditation is wrong and right. You’re really suggesting that the meditation is different than the way he’s using the word.
1:40:48 JM: Look, we started off... I mean, I’m very grateful that meditation was gone into this thoroughly, but we’re all... I mean, I think I’m talking for Sudarshan too, but certainly this is what I mean: for me, it’s simply the vehicle through which we’re getting clear where our methodologies divert.
1:41:04 FC: I think this is the...
1:41:06 DB: Can we have order, please. I think you wanted to ask...
1:41:08 EF: Can I say something? I’d like to ask you a question. If...
1:41:11 K: I hope I’ll be able to answer it.
1:41:13 EF: (Laughs) If a person says or understands what you mean when you talk about this state, this being...
1:41:25 K: It’s not what I mean; it is your life.
1:41:27 EF: Yes, but you’re talking about it; I’m listening. And I can say I understand or I don’t understand. But if I understand, does that mean that I am, of necessity, in that state because I’ve understood it?
1:41:43 K: Obviously, not. What do you call...? One must define or make clear what we mean by understand. Intellectual understanding? Verbal understanding?
1:41:51 EF: Well, I thought that this very thing you’re talking about meant not verbal understanding; it was something else.
1:41:57 K: Therefore, it means what? That you lead a life that is orderly... You can’t just take meditation by itself; it’s all related.
1:42:08 EF: No. What I mean is that if certain people – as there are some people round here – who maintain by their remarks that they know what you mean, does that mean that really they’re in that state?
1:42:21 K: I cannot answer for others.
1:42:23 JM: But is it possible for someone to know what you mean without being in that state?
1:42:26 K: What sir?
1:42:27 JM: Is it possible for me to say that I’ve understood what you’ve been saying without having, as it were, experienced what you were talking about?
1:42:34 K: How...? I don’t know...
1:42:38 JM: I can’t.
1:42:39 K: I doubt it; how can I say?
1:42:40 JM: No, but...
1:42:41 EF: What I’m saying is this: Julian’s being honest in the sense that there is no inconsistency in the way he behaves or exists and what he’s saying now.
1:42:52 K: I don’t quite follow this. Sorry. I must be dumb. What are you trying to tell...?
1:42:58 EF: He maintains that he...
1:43:01 K: Who?
1:43:02 EF: Julian.
1:43:03 JM: Me.
1:43:04 K: Ah, I beg your pardon.
1:43:05 EF: Right? There’s no inconsistency between his mode of living, his existence, how he lives and what he’s saying about these various things, about not quite understanding what you mean. Now, what I’m saying is, is there... could there be a way of understanding what you mean but being inconsistent in that one doesn’t carry it out?
1:43:23 DB: Just a moment.
1:43:25 JM: Yes. That’s a good question.
1:43:30 K: Sir, Professor Wilkins...
1:43:33 MW: Could I raise a point? I’m at a loss, because there has been discussion about whether methods of meditation work. I somehow feel this has got off the rails...
1:43:48 K: I quite agree, sir.
1:43:50 MW: ...badly. And I just feel that possibly one would get it back on the rails if one took up the point that you mentioned, that death had not been discussed. I mean, wouldn’t this possibly get us...?
1:44:05 K: Go into death, sir?
1:44:07 MW: Death.
1:44:08 DB: Yes.
1:44:09 RM: Yes, death.
1:44:10 DB: Yes. Just to let you know, it’s twenty past five, so decide whatever you want to do.
1:44:13 JM: By going to all these topics though, we are avoiding the big issue. We are.
1:44:15 K: Which is the...?
1:44:16 DB: Well, no, no.
1:44:17 K: Look, which is the big...? Look, the big issue is of course…
1:44:19 Q: This is your issue.
1:44:22 JM: No, it’s not just my issue; I mean, I’m sure it’s just not my issue.
1:44:27 DB: Well, no, just a moment, please; I mean, Maurice Wilkins thinks that this is the issue.
1:44:30 K: Sir, can we discuss this question of death tomorrow morning?
1:44:33 DB: Yes, that would be better.
1:44:35 K: May we, sir?
1:44:36 MW: Yes, but I feel that these... the way the other issue is going can be helped by this consideration. I think that’s my point.
1:44:46 JM: Ah, well then...
1:44:47 DB: Now, you wanted to say something?
1:44:48 FC: Can I make a short... I think we should be aware here that there are two different things and people with different intentions: some people want to talk about meditation, other people want to talk about our communication and various methodological problems and are willing to take meditation as an example. But we could... For Julian, I think you would be happy to talk about any subject, but you’re more interested in the way we communicate and in different types of knowledge, and so on.
1:45:17 GS: Except that here we have gone on to something in which there are well-defined examples which we have personal experience...
1:45:22 FC: Yes, so we have chosen a very good example. But...
1:45:25 DP: Yes, but do we have to talk about things all the time? We’re talking about meditation, about this, about that...
1:45:28 FC: Well, wait... So the people who are more interested in the subject tend to concentrate on that, and the others tend more to concentrate on the forms and methods and words and so on. So there are two different intentions and maybe we should separate them, I don’t know.
1:45:48 K: Sir, can’t we get a whole view of this? Like looking at a map of Europe or America... looking at a map, not wanting to go in any direction, then you don’t see the map...
1:46:09 FC: I think we can’t as long as we are talking. If we want to talk, then we want to talk; we can’t get a whole view then.
1:46:15 K: No, I have talked. No, I talked. I said, ‘Look at this map. Don’t look at the particular town you want to go to, but look at this whole map.’
1:46:25 FC: Yes, we can do that, but that is not talking.
1:46:28 K: That’s all! That’s all.
1:46:31 DB: I mean, as there’s one more questioner wants to talk, could I suggest that if we... it would be better to start the question of death in the morning when people are fresher. But... (Laughter)
1:46:44 EF: When people are most alive.
1:46:45 DB: Yes, you’re more alive; it takes a great life to understand death. And now, if you want to say...
1:46:49 KP: I’d like to respond to Liz’s question about understanding what Krishnamurti is saying. Now, I read his book very carefully; I read it a couple of times, at separate intervals before I came, and I got part of the idea but I wasn’t feeling particularly positive towards it. And as I’ve listened to him, I’ve been getting a better and better and better idea of what he’s talking about. Now, how do I get this idea? It’s certainly not because I’m living it, you know, all the time, but I’ve had some experiences; at times, I’ve been able to put aside my attachments and to get in touch with my violence; at times, I’ve been able to do this, so I get a sense of what he’s saying. And I don’t think it’s so terribly difficult to do.
1:47:51 K: You are not in love with meditation, that’s all, sir. When you’re in love with a woman or a man, you don’t go on, ‘What’s the colour of your hair? ’ and discuss and... You do not love this thing to find out what it means.
1:48:03 JM: Look, some people are implying that it’s wrong to question...
1:48:07 DB: No.
1:48:08 JM: ...and that irritates me, it really does.
1:48:09 DB: No...
1:48:10 K: (Laughs) Darling sir, I have questioned...
1:48:12 JM: No, no, excuse me; I wasn’t referring to you. I wasn’t referring to you. But somebody said that if anyone begins to question in an attempt to understand, we’re doing... we are wasting time, and that’s ridiculous.
1:48:23 DB: No, I think that there’s a certain misunderstanding going on; and perhaps it might be best, you know, if we could argue it out in smaller groups before the morning. Because... But if somebody wants to ask some short question perhaps we could have it but I think that, you know, it’s getting rather late and it might...
1:48:45 K: Yes sir, it’s getting late.
1:48:46 DB: ...we’re all getting a bit tired, and perhaps it would be best to start again in the morning.
1:48:49 HT: Can I just say that I’m really very thankful to Julian for doing all the questioning, because I’m not very...
1:48:56 DB: Yes.
1:48:57 MW: Yes, I agree.
1:48:58 DB: Yes, I mean he’s performed a very useful function.
1:48:59 K: Yes sir.
🢁