OJ66D1 - Is it possible to end violence without effort? home
Ojai, California - 4 November 1966
Public Discussion 1

Text-only version

0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s first public discussion in Ojai, California, 1966.
0:09 Krishnamurti: We are going to talk over together any one of the many problems that we all have to face. It is really an examination of the issues that confront us, and if we can take one or two at each discussion – or perhaps only one – then we can go into it not only in detail, but more extensively and deeply. To do that, one has to be rather serious. We’re not discussing intellectually mere ideas, or be content with explanations – explanations, description, the word is not the fact. The word ‘war’ is not an idea, it’s an actual state that is going on in the world. 1:35 So the word, the explanation, the description, is not the fact; and merely to be content with description, explanation, has very little meaning. So if we would discuss, or rather – I prefer that word – talk things over together, we should, I think, not be content merely to intellectually examine, but rather expose the problem to ourselves, go into it with a serious intent; and to be serious, one has to go not only at the beginning but to the very end of that issue, so that the thing becomes very clear, not only verbally but actually. Then, when there is clarity, there is action. 2:54 Clarity is not different from action. When you see something as dangerous, you act immediately. So if we could, this evening – and the other three discussions that are going to take place here – if we could hesitantly, in an inquiring state of mind, not curious but with the urge to find out, and not be satisfied with any explanation, then perhaps a discussion or a talking over together this evening might be useful. So what shall we talk over together? And please, let us talk over together something fundamental, not how to grow something or other.
4:06 Questioner: Could we discuss the problem of war and aggression?
4:14 K: War and aggression: someone wants to discuss that, talk over.
4:31 Q: I’d like to know, sir, why animals and little humans suffer so unspeakably.
4:42 K: Why do animals and human beings suffer so unspeakably.
4:51 Q: Little human beings.
4:54 K: Little, small… children. Human beings, especially children, and animals suffer – why? Madame? Sir, just a minute, that...
5:13 Q: You said you would discuss fear at another time once when…
5:18 K: You said you would discuss fear; would you go into it this evening.
5:21 Q: Is it possible for a person really to look at the branches of the trees against the sky, and really to listen to the sounds of the audience, and at the same time follow closely what the speaker is saying? I would like to have you discuss what you mean by total attention and right listening.
5:49 K: The questioner would like to discuss whether it is possible to give total attention to what is being said and, at the same time, look at a branch, a bird on the wing.
6:08 Yes, madame?
6:10 Q: I would like to discuss the problem of violence and cruelty.
6:13 K: Violence and cruelty. Now, that’s enough, I think; wouldn’t you? Perhaps in discussing aggression, war and cruelty, we’ll perhaps cover the ground of what it is to be aware, what it is to attend. Can we do that?
6:44 Q: Yes.
6:44 K: Will that be all right? Right. There is war, violence, aggression. That’s a fact, not an idea. And is it possible, living in this world, to be non-aggressive, not to have war? That’s what we’re going to discuss. Right? Now, from what centre do you discuss a thing like this? Your personal views? Personal views guided by your… by one’s inclination, temperament, or because the society says so? How do you explore a thing of this kind? Are we going to depend, in the understanding of this question, on our personal opinions? That is, my favourite war and an unpleasant war. 8:37 Or do you want to discuss aggression as a whole, whether it’s in India, in China, in Russia or in America, or... – human aggression? And when we go into it, are we discussing it, talking over together merely verbally or really want to find out whether man – the human being, you and I – can be really free from aggression? Not in some future date, but actually when we leave this place to be totally free from all kinds of aggression. Is it possible? First of all, let us take the fact that we human beings, like so many animals, are violent: violent in our speech, violent in our gestures, violent in our relationships, violent when we are competitive, greedy, envious; and the whole social and economic structure is based on acquisitiveness, which is another form of violence. 10:45 Not only there is the physical violence, outward violence, but also there is the inward violence. When I force myself to do something, when I compel myself into certain attitudes, when I discipline myself to conform to a particular pattern – all that’s implied violence, surely?
11:27 Q: Isn’t there a difference between force and violence?
11:30 K: Beg your pardon?
11:30 Q: Don’t you think there is a difference between force and violence?
11:36 K: Force?
11:36 Q: You’re equating them now; is there really a difference?
11:39 K: None at all. I’m just putting them all together, spreading it out for us to look. So there is an outward and inward state of violence. Really, they are not two things: outer and inner; there is a state of violence. And also, there is the ideal of non-violence, which is not a fact. Right? When I realise I am violent, what is the use of having an ideal of non-violence? And is not all ideology idiotic? It doesn’t matter whether it’s communist ideology or the religious ideology – the idea of brotherhood, say, for example, which is idiotic; why should you have an ideal? 13:12 The fact is man is not brotherly. Full stop. So to understand violence, as human beings are, we must be rid of the idea of non-violence, the ideology. And why do we have ideologies at all? Ideologies, formulas, concepts, beliefs – why? We say these ideals are necessary, as non-violence, because it helps me to guide myself when I’m violent; it acts as a brake, or it acts as a lever; it gives me an encouragement, an inspiration to get over the fact that I’m violent. Isn’t that so? I don’t know... This is not a one-sided talk, please.
14:42 Q: That’s clear enough.
14:48 K: So when we are discussing or talking over together violence, is each one of us free from the ideal of non-violence? Then we can proceed.
15:07 Q: If a man recognises himself as being violent, but he avoids stepping on ants or working around a garden and disturbing little animals and things like that that live in his area, is this an idea?
15:25 K: No, sir… Sir, don’t reduce it immediately to little worms and garden, and all that, but get... let’s look at it first, what is involved. Please, sir, just… let’s look at the whole problem, not just go immediately to the detail. Let’s get the picture first. Yes, sir? You don’t have to put your hand; just talk, sir.
15:52 Q: Okay. Idealism has helped me to produce in myself the illusion that I have done something about violence.
16:02 K: You have answered the question, haven’t you? No, sir, this is... Because, you know, for centuries upon centuries, we have lived with ideals, ideation: good, one must be spiritual, violence and non-violence – ideals. And why? Before we can get rid of the ideals, why do we have them at all?
16:43 Q: Krishnaji, isn’t it because the nature of man’s mind, that is, man being the only animal that knows that he knows – he knows that he doesn’t know – there’s a polarity; and isn’t this polarity in itself a violence?
17:01 K: Sir, we can explain it, sir. I am violent, and I’ve been told from childhood I must be non-violent; the ideal has been put into my mind. I say to myself, ‘Why? Why does an ideal exist at all?’
17:20 Q: Sir, isn’t this the problem of mind always exist in the pull of opposites…?
17:24 K: We are going to go into it, sir, but first don’t... We are examining.
17:33 Q: Do we not have to want something better before we can have something better?
17:37 K: Do we not have to have something better before we can change ‘what is’. You know, the better is the destruction of the good. Ah, sir, do please...
17:58 Q: Then it must be that the idea comes about in the child from the parent in order to protect society against the child growing up and taking over and what not; so that the child will be controlled.
18:21 K: Sir, let’s stick to one thing, and we’ll go through with it. Man, as we know, as each one of us knows, one is violent in different ways: consciously and unconsciously, knowingly and not-knowingly. And there has been this ideal preached throughout the world: non-violence. That we know. That’s happening all the time. It is used as a political instrument, and also it is used as a means of helping one to get rid of violence. Hope. That is so. Now, let’s proceed from there. Now, I ask myself, why do I have to have an ideal of any kind? Not only non-violent, but of any kind?
19:30 Q: To avoid looking at the problem.
19:38 K: To avoid looking at the problem. That is, I have an ideal of non-violence to be achieved eventually, and in the meantime I am violent; I’m sowing the seeds of violence. Actually, I’m not interested in being non-violent – that is an eventual thing – but it gives me a great delight to be violent now; delight, pleasure, I want to retaliate, and so on, so on. I’m asking myself: why cannot I put away all ideals – please listen – all ideals and face the fact? Face actually ‘what is’?
20:55 Q: It’s too fearful to look at.
21:00 K: It is too fearful to look at. Now, wait a minute. Why? Why is it too fearful to look at?
21:07 Q: We’d have to change.
21:07 Q: Because of the ideal, we want…
21:10 K: No… Do please take time over this; don’t just answer immediately, because then we don’t investigate. Why is it so fearful to know what I am?
21:29 Q: We have a beautiful image of ourselves.
21:34 K: You have an image of yourself. Is not the image the ideal? No, sir… it is much more complex than merely getting rid of an ideal. It’s very complex, this problem. So we have ideals because, first, we cannot face the fact.
22:05 Q: We don’t want to change the fact.
22:09 K: Please... May I suggest something? In talking over together, it’s no good adding more and more words. What we are trying to do is to look at ourselves in a mirror – and this is a very good opportunity for each one of us to look – and why do we object to looking actually ‘what is’? You say, ‘Well, I have an image of what I am, or what I should be. I don’t like what I see. I’m frightened of what I discover in myself’. So can the mind look at the fact without the image, without the ideal? Can I know, realise, be aware that I’m stupid, that I’m violent, and not try to run away or explain it away or justify it or condemn it, but the fact… to observe that fact?
24:13 Q: If you look at the ideals themselves and see what they are, you may see that you are stupid.
24:19 K: Ah, do I recognise my stupidity through comparison?
24:26 Q: No, sir. I say if you look at the ideals themselves to see what they are, to see what they really are.
24:34 K: And... Oh. Obviously. If I look at my ideals – if I have any – then I see how absurd they are, how unreal they are. Is that it?
24:53 Q: Yes, sir.
24:53 K: Then we get rid of them. But it’s not quite so simple.
25:00 Q: That’s right. I’m trying to say something that… it’s not trying to see that you are stupid, but it will come about by itself.
25:12 K: Sir, do look at this point: how do I know I’m violent? Because somebody has told me? Because there has been the ideal of non-violence so fixed in my mind that, in comparison to that ideal, I find myself violent? How do you know you’re violent?
25:53 Q: I experience it.
25:56 K: How do you know when you’re hungry? You’re hungry. Right? Nobody needs to tell you. You don’t say, ‘I’m hungry because yesterday I was well-fed’, So you realise a sensation which must be satisfied: hunger; and you directly are aware of it; nobody has to tell you; you don’t have to compare. Now, is one aware, in the same way, of violence?
26:36 Q: Yes.
26:39 K: You are... Madame, this is one of the most difficult things; you can’t just say, ‘Yes’, quickly, so quickly. You may; but we can’t so quickly answer; it’s a very difficult issue. Then the question arises...
27:05 Q: You know if you feel like bothering somebody.
27:13 K: Is it the word that makes you realise that you’re violent? Or do you know violence, temper, wanting to hit somebody, retaliate – and so, so on, aggression, and all the rest of it – non-verbally?
27:51 Q: The ‘I’ is double.
27:54 K: Beg your pardon, madame?
27:54 Q: The ‘I’ is dual.
27:58 K: We are not discussing for the moment the ‘I’ being dual. Please, this is really... Do give a little attention to this; which is: do I know that I’m violent because of the word?
28:19 Q: Apparently, some people are not really in contact with their deeper feelings, with their emotions. Is that true? Because if you are, you know.
28:36 K: This is... Deeper feelings… if one is contact, the person says, you actually know. It’s not quite so simple as all this. What, sir?
29:00 Q: You spoke of hunger a while ago; you know you’re hungry. And your very hunger, if not satisfied, could possibly create violence; it does in the animal world. You’re aggressive when you’re hungry.
29:13 Q: But you asked a question, sir: can the mind look. You said can the mind look at the fact without the ideal. Is it yes or no? I would say, ‘No’, but I want to know whether you would say, ‘Yes’, or, ‘No’.
29:32 Q: Is it the mind that can see violence?
29:40 Q: Violence is a natural appetite.
29:46 Q: Sir, it’s obvious we are violent. What is the point that we know we are not violent?
29:51 K: Because, sir, to bring about a radical change, a complete mutation of a mind, of a human being that has been nurtured in violence, aggression for centuries upon centuries, one must approach it differently; and that’s what we’re trying to do. If we want to change violence totally, and if you make an effort to change it, it is still part of violence. So is it possible to bring about a total cessation of violence without effort? That’s one of the issues. You understand? Because if I make effort, I’m part of that... I’m moving in the field of violence. So I have to understand this whole problem; I have to go into it.
31:06 Q: Do you mean that everything we do is violence?
31:09 Q: Sir, what is violence?
31:12 K: What is violence. Oh, my Lord. War, hate, aggression, cruelty, the storing up of resentment.
31:28 Q: Can mutation come about without violence, under these terms?
31:32 K: That’s what we are examining, sirs.
31:37 Q: By seeing that it exists, seeing it for what it is – as you have said before – without condemning or without condoning, merely looking at it, will not that bring about the cessation of violence in yourself?
31:46 K: That’s what we’re asking, sir. We haven’t even inquired; we don’t even stop; we are precipitating with words. Can I look at myself, my violence, without justification, condemnation, trying to deny it, escape from it, but actually look at it? If… Do please... Do let’s limit our talking over together to that one issue.
32:19 Q: Could it be, maybe, that violence does have a place, even if it isn’t always…?
32:30 K: Violence may have a place in life. All right, keep it. I mean, I’m not saying… Please, this is really... We must get on, otherwise we haven’t... Please, look at it. Hate is part of violence, anger; and can I… can my mind be free of hate and anger? And why should it be free? Unless you inquire, go into it, you cannot answer all these questions.
33:18 Q: Isn’t violence the by-product of our conditioning?
33:23 K: Yes, sir. Part of our conditioning is that we are violent. You see, you don’t go much further; you just stop each time there.
33:36 Q: It seems every time I might come close to experiencing violence, something else always comes in: a justification, explaining it away, liking it, disliking it. It’s very hard to go beyond that. And the question is, how can one...
33:54 K: Will you please allow me to talk for two or three minutes, and then we can come into words… words with battle…? I mean, battle with words.
34:18 First of all, I realise as a human being or one realises as a human being one is violent; violence being anger, hate, the desire to hurt somebody; and, much deeper, violence is a part of that psychological system that makes you conform. And also… still there is the violence of trying to become famous, fulfil, ambition, greed, envy. All that is part of violence. The very, very superficial violence, and the very deep-rooted violence, as aggression. That is the pattern of our life. And I see, not only historically, what it has done in the world: wars – all that we don’t have to go into, because that’s a waste of time; it’s fairly obvious – and also inwardly this violence has bred in human beings a contradiction.
36:01 Our lives are a battlefield, violence and non-violence – the opposites. And in order to avoid or escape from violence, we have cunningly invented the ideals: non-violence, being peaceful, being brotherly when we hate everybody, and so on, so on, so on. And one asks oneself: why should any duality exist at all – not that there’s a man and a woman, dark, light, and so on; we’re not talking of that – this inward duality, this comparison of ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’? And does comparison bring about an ending of ‘what is’? Or does comparison between two pictures make me understand the one picture? 37:31 By comparing yesterday’s sunset to today’s sunset, do I see this sunset better? Or, in a school where one boy is compared to another boy and, in that comparison, destroy the other boy? So one realises, in examining and looking, the ideals as a means of getting rid of ‘what is’, is utterly meaningless; and to be rid of violence, there must be another method… – not a method – a totally different approach in which there is no conflict, in which there is no effort to be rid of something. Right?
38:42 Q: What happens if I find out that I am violent and keep on doing it…?
38:48 K: No, wait, sir, wait! We’ll come to that.
38:50 Q: No, I want to say this… say from my point. If I’m aware that I am violent, and I feel it hurts me, or whatever it is, I just look at it and drop it. If I look quietly and become aware that I am violent, I will stop to be violent.
39:08 K: All right, sir. Bien.
39:11 Q: Couldn’t it be?
39:15 K: Yes, sir. So my question is: violence seems to be part of our life; and also part of our life is to get rid of it, make an effort to justify it or to suppress it or to pretend that it isn’t there, and so on. That is, the exercise of will to get rid of violence is still part of violence. Right?
40:08 Q: The opposite of hate is love, and if one loves, there is no need to be violent…
40:17 K: Sir, sir, is love the opposite of hate?
40:21 Q: Yes.
40:21 K: Oh, for God’s sake. No, no, no…
40:25 Q: Love is violent.
40:28 K: No, no; wait sir; don’t... I’ve just explained. I just pointed out something.
40:33 Q: One needn’t use the word ‘opposite’, but if one loves...
40:36 K: Ah, no… How can you love when you hate… jealous, ambitious, greedy, envious, aggressive…? So my question is, after looking at it: will, determination, suppression, control, sublimation, which are all forms of effort to get rid of violence, and we know what violence is; and I see any effort to get rid of violence is part of violence.
41:32 Q: Doesn’t it require an effort to look at it?
41:39 K: Just… Does it not... Does not effort... Is not effort necessary to look. What do you say?
41:54 Q: No.
41:54 K: Ah, do...
41:58 Q: The effort would condition the way we look at it.
42:04 K: Sir, does it need an effort on your part to look at a sunset, or some face which you like to look at? It becomes an effort when there is no pleasure in looking – right? – when there is no reward. We won’t go into it for the moment. So the problem is then: violence, and man has tried every devious ways of getting rid of violence. Communities have been formed, in which every kind of violence was denied, and so on, so on, so on; and man has still pursued a way of life in which there is violence and war. 43:35 And one asks oneself: is it possible to end violence without effort? You understand now the question? I hate – if I do – and my conditioning says it’s not right, and I make an effort not to hate; but that effort is part of hate. And yet I know… I realise hate must come to an end, because it’s too ugly, too brutal and conflicting and, you know, all the rest of it. So is it possible to rid of violence immediately, without any motive and without any effort?
44:40 Q: Does it take effort to love?
44:44 K: Sir, let… I’m... I’m holding on to one word called ‘violence’.
44:49 Q: We’re trying to get rid of violence.
44:52 K: What, sir?
44:55 Q: I thought we were trying to eliminate violence.
44:59 K: Ah…! We’re not trying to eliminate violence. Who is ‘we’ who are going to eliminate it? Please, who is the centre, who is the observer, who is the thinker or the experiencer who says, ‘I am violent; I must get rid of it’? Is not the thinker, the thought? The observer is the observed. Ah, this you won’t see. Is this all too abstract?
45:42 Q: No.
45:42 K: No. Or… no, please, that’s why... No. Or...
45:46 Q: I think it is, sir.
45:49 K: I’m glad, sir. I’m glad somebody says it is abstract.
45:56 Q: Sir, sometimes one hears that question: can I get rid of violence, can I understand violence…?
46:03 K: We are doing it, madame.
46:03 Q: One knows that, yes, that’s true; but when one goes to work these days and one is sensitive and one is honest emotionally, one picks up from everything around one this violence. Not only that, sir, people put pressure on one, terrible pressure.
46:24 K: I know, I know. Whole society, husbands, wives, everybody is putting us into pressure.
46:31 Q: …your employers, your co-workers, they know you’re different from them and they want to destroy you.
46:37 K: Madame, we know all this. Please, this is...
46:41 Q: I don’t think a lot of people do know all this.
46:45 K: I mean, this is part of the circus of existence. So please, let us... You see, sir, when there is no violence and hatred, then perhaps there is a... there can be a flowering of goodness and therefore love. But with aggression, with violence, with hate and retaliation, and all the rest of it, the other thing cannot possibly exist. So is it possible to end violence, and therefore all the sequence that will follow violence, like war, class divisions, and all that, is it possible to end violence immediately without effort? Don’t say, ‘Yes’, or, ‘No’.
47:53 Q: Perhaps.
47:53 K: Ah…
48:01 Q: If we are aware...
48:05 K: No, sir; no, don’t… don’t… Not if; no conditional if. Sir, I’m violent. I see what is involved in it, historically, inwardly, what is the result of violence in my relationship, sexually, in every way; I realise what it is. And I ask myself, ‘Is it possible to end it immediately?’
48:34 Q: It’s not possible as long as one is defending oneself.
48:37 K: Sir, do please... Don’t answer me. This is a very complex problem, sirs. Go into it a little bit with me.
48:49 Q: If you’ve asked yourself that, you don’t know.
48:52 K: We are going to find out, sir. We are going to go into it step-by-step, if you will go with it.
49:01 Q: Is violence a part of nature, or is it unnatural?
49:04 K: Oh… Nature is violent, sir: thunderstorms, animals killing each other. For God’s sake, we are not animals; we are part animal... We are trying to understand it; don’t bring in extraneous, obvious facts. I’m not being impatient, but we have no time, sir. You understand?
49:24 Q: One can’t do anything at all about the violence; you can only be aware of the escapes from it.
49:32 K: One cannot do anything about violence. All that one can do is to be aware the escapes from violence. That’s what we have done so far, haven’t we? We have stopped all the avenues of escape from violence: effort, will, condemnation, justification, sublimation, avoidance, and all that. We have discarded all that, actually, if one wants to resolve this problem.
50:10 Q: Sir, are you asking me to experience that violence in myself right now?
50:16 K: Partly. Sir, let us look at it differently. One has… some human beings have a habit of smoking – I’m taking the most trivial thing – and we either give it up because doctors have said it, or the advert, and so on, through fear, or through some form… another kind of pleasure, a greater pleasure, we drop the lesser. Now, is it possible to drop smoking immediately, knowing the body has been accustomed to a certain drug, it demands it, and not fight the body, and yet make the body intelligent enough for itself so that it understands? See the… You understand? 51:39 So that there is no effort involved at all? Sir, it’s like asking oneself whether it is possible to be free from the known. Because violence and all the ideologies about it and against it and for it, is the known. We all know it. Now, is it possible to be free of the known immediately? I’m putting it in different ways. You have hurt me, or you have flattered me; and when there is flattery, I’m pleased. I hold on to it, I cultivate it. And also, when you have hurt me, insulted me, I also cultivate that. 53:04 Now, to drop both the hurt and the flattery immediately, as you... as it takes place. That demands a great deal of attention – doesn’t it? – a great deal of awareness as you are being insulted, to be… to know that you are insulted, not to react, and to know perhaps what the other says about you is true, and see the whole picture and understand it completely and end it, as it takes place.
53:48 Q: Is it not a matter of knowing who is using the body and who is using the mind?
53:54 K: Oh, good Lord. Is it not a matter of who is using the body and who is using the mind. Oh no, my lady. You mean the higher self and the lower self?
54:11 Q: No, there’s no division.
54:14 K: Then who is the entity that’s using the body and the mind?
54:17 Q: Well, these are words, I realise, but isn’t it possible to know it immediately?
54:23 K: What? Know what?
54:26 Q: See the whole picture, as you were saying, and know that it can be ended immediately.
54:32 K: Not... What’s the good of my knowing it can end immediately? I know it only when it has ended.
54:41 Q: Yes. It is.
54:47 K: Look, when you have a toothache, do you go through all this? Arguments and pros and cons, justifying it and looking at it differently, higher self, lower self. You go to the telephone and make an appointment, and rush. There is no question of argument. Now, why can’t we do the same thing with regard to this? What is preventing us seeing that we are violent and ending it?
55:35 Q: Nothing.
55:38 K: Sure?
55:42 Q: I’m sure. I don’t know about the others.
55:45 Q: We like the sensation of violence, and we don’t want to end it.
55:52 K: Then don’t end violence. If you like the sensation of violence, with all its things, have it, carry on. No, you’re not meeting the issue at all. Too bad.
56:04 Q: Is it possible to meet violence, not of the self, but from moment to moment?
56:11 K: Oh, sirs, sirs…
56:15 Q: To face it from moment to moment. Would it then not disappear, without bringing in the memory?
56:19 K: Sir, don’t... It becomes very... We’ll go into it, sir. First see the question: whether it is possible to end something immediately, especially when it gives you pleasure.
56:33 Q: I don’t know.
56:36 Q: All these things that you talk about indicate a certain dependency.
56:40 K: Obviously, sir.
56:43 Q: When the child, you know, when the child lays in the crib and you stick something at it that it doesn’t want, it pushes away; that, in its own way, is its own violence.
56:49 K: Of course, sir.
56:52 Q: The man who has the cigarette, who realises that it’s a dependency, quits smoking the cigarette because, to a certain extent, he is able to understand, and not smoke because somebody told him not to smoke.
57:10 K: That’s... Sir, I understand. A physical fact is fairly simple to get rid of immediately, but a psychological fact is much more difficult. And that’s what we are trying to do.
57:25 Q: It takes effort to be willing to be wide open, doesn’t it?
57:30 K: No. If you make an effort to be intelligent, you cease to be intelligent. This is all so psychologically obvious, isn’t it? May I go on for a while, little again? Look, sir, being violent as a human being, one realises that one has carried on year after year, month after month, centuries with this violence, and never ended it; and seeing the whole picture, what is involved in it, why allow time to enter into that factor? Time, saying, ‘I will end it gradually’. You understand? The time factor. It is this time factor that is preventing you from acting immediately. It is the time factor… the time-binding quality is the result of an ideal. I don’t know... Are…?
59:20 Q: Is not the mind bound in the time, to move in time?
59:24 K: Sir, don’t... Just see; of course, the mind is the result of time. You see... Now, why do you have this time-binding quality which says, ‘I will get rid of it’ – the will: ‘I will get rid of it’ – the time element, which means the future, the tomorrow, the next moment? Why does… why is the mind conditioned that way? Why do we say, ‘I will get rid of it’?
1:00:04 Q: Because then we don’t have to do anything about it now.
1:00:07 K: Madame, please examine yourself, not answer me.
1:00:13 Q: It’s pleasure.
1:00:17 K: No sir, much more is involved in it. We are always functioning within this time period.
1:00:29 Q: Over a period of time, we have built a false relationship with others, and we represent certain things to them, perhaps. Our relationships are false, therefore...
1:00:46 Q: I see that, if I do anything right now about it, I’ll be very disturbed and have to do a lot of things I might not want to do.
1:00:53 K: That’s just one of the factors. One of the factors is, if I do something drastic in the immediate moment, it might result in all kinds of activities which will be very disturbing. And so one of the factors of this invention of time is not to be disturbed by... I just... Status quo: let there be violence. Not to be disturbed.
1:01:27 Q: Violence is a disturbance, and it demands a release in the moment.
1:01:29 K: But...
1:01:32 Q: And it’s another matter to be quiet in that moment and see it: violence within the self.
1:01:37 K: Yes, but I get rid of... If there is an immediate freedom from violence, my mind may foresee something in which there’ll be a greater disturbance too. So I say, ‘Please, let’s carry on as it is. I will have an ideal to get rid of it and carry on this pleasant game of playing being non-violent’. So you see, what is actually taking place here, now, is we are objecting to look at the fact – the fact that one is violent – and to come directly into contact with that fact. I’m sure there are some who hate people, who dislike people, who react very quickly. And is it possible not to hate at all? You see, we are refusing to face a fact; and when you do face a fact, how do you face that fact?
1:03:08 Q: Without caring whatever the fact is going to be.
1:03:11 K: Yes, but do you...? Please, go into it. Is it possible to look at a fact – fact of violence – without justifying, without condemning, without trying to do something about it; just to look?
1:03:32 Q: It’s so difficult.
1:03:35 K: Yes, sir. That’s what we’re... Everything… life is difficult. Don’t… Take...
1:03:38 Q: I’m not complaining.
1:03:41 K: What, sir?
1:03:41 Q: I’m not complaining. It’s so difficult, because I’m trying to see what it is that we’re missing and…
1:03:52 K: Sir, let’s begin from a different...
1:03:55 Q: No, sir, I’m… …the picture as we have it. We see the consequences of our… we see the violence; we see the consequences of it; we see, if we look at it, what the consequences to ourselves may be. And we don’t see one other thing: the full consequences of the violence itself. We don’t see enough, somehow.
1:04:24 K: Sir, when you look at a tree, do you look at it? Or do you look at the image of that tree you have in your mind? Please, let’s stick to that very simple thing, which is really very complex; just take that one thing. There is a tree, that oak tree: do you look at it or do you look at the word, and the word that creates the image, and that image which is… you are looking at, not at the fact? There is a tree in front of you; look at it. Are you actually looking at that tree, or the thought is looking at the tree? Now, you heard the crow cawing, there. Are you listening to it, the sound, or are you identifying that sound with the bird, which is the crow? Can you look at somebody without the image that you have about that someone?
1:06:09 And you can look at something which is static. That’s fairly simple. And the look at the thing that is static is time. But a thing that is in movement, you can’t look, because we can only look at something that is static; something which is not… which is a movement, an endless flow, which is not time-binding, it’s very difficult to look. So can you, when you look at a tree, your mind is already so active: ‘It’s an oak tree. I like it. It’s old. It’s young’, and so on, so on, that you’re not looking at all. Now, can you look at that violence without the image which you have about that fact? 1:07:45 And when can you look at any fact? Only when the mind is completely quiet, undisturbed by thought, by images. Now, can I look at violence, the feeling of it, the fear of it, the nausea of it, the whole structure and the meaning of violence, without any... with complete quietness of mind? And when you do, it is an instant action, therefore there is no violence. It is only the very disturbed mind that’s violent. And such a disturbed mind cannot possibly look or hear. And it is only the really very quiet mind that looks, at the sunset, at the tree, or at the image of oneself that one has created about oneself.
1:10:05 You see, effort exists as long as there is the idea of gradualness. To learn a language, I need time: many days, many months. And need I have time, need there be time, to end a psychological fact? And the ending of a psychological fact – as anger, violence, and so on – is only possible when I am… when the mind is in immediate contact with the fact. And there is no contact with the fact if there is a time interval as the observer and the observed. 1:11:27 And only the mind that is very quiet, that’s capable of observing – and it’s only a quiet mind, really quiet mind, that observes, that sees, that listens; and it is the quiet mind, without any effort, without wanting to change, not change, justify – it’s only that mind that ends immediately violence. It is not violent.
1:12:30 Sirs, do let’s be clear the meaning of these gatherings for discussions. We are not intellectually meeting at that intellectual level at all, or at the verbal level, or at an emotional level. What we are trying to do together is to understand these problems; and in the understanding of the problem is the ending of the problem; not in some future date, not tomorrow, but immediately; and the immediacy of ending a problem is only possible if you give your attention step by step, go into it, not jump to any conclusion at any time, and having concluded, proceed from that conclusion – which is another form of idiocy. Right, sirs.
🢁