RV78DT4 - What will bring about total relationship in our life? home
Rishi Valley, India - 9 December 1978
Discussion with Teachers 4

Text-only version

0:01 This is J. Krishnamurti’s fourth discussion with teachers at Rishi Valley, 1978.
0:11 Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about? I would like, if I may, [to] go into the question of what is learning. Would that be all right? Would you like to discuss that? Does it...? What do you say, sir?
0:55 Questioner: Sir, how about relationship?
1:00 K: I wonder if we cannot learn what is relationship, learn about the very complex question of relationship. Could we?
1:13 Q: Yes sir.
1:14 K: Learn about it, not what is. I don’t know if you see the difference. So I would like, if I may, [to] begin with learning and then relate it to relationship and many other things. Would that be all right? Oh, come on.
1:39 Many: Yes.
1:43 K: (Laughs) What is the actual act of learning? The act, the movement, that which is happening now when there is learning, that which is taking place in the very act of learning; not learning about something: about mathematics, about history or this or that, but the very movement of learning. (Pause) Won’t you come nearer, sir; there’s plenty of room. You’re all smothered there. Come over here, sir; come on, sir.
2:43 George Narayan: No, we have plenty of space here.
2:45 K: I’m [to] sit in my solitary altitude, over a little bit of that? All right. (Pause) Put it differently: what is the state of the mind and the brain that is learning? What is actually going on when there is the sense of acquiring knowledge, acquiring information, going through an experience, coming to a conclusion and acting according to that conclusion; what is the actual movement or the dynamics – if you like to use that word – the brain, the quality of the mind that’s learning? Because that’s what we are concerned [with]; you 4:25 as educators, you want the student to learn – to learn about mathematics or physics or biology – but before asking the subject about which you are learning, what is learning itself? I hope I’m making this clear, because if we could understand that in its profundity, then the learning about something becomes quite simple, easy. I learn, I read a book about Marx – who has become rather old-fashioned now – I learn about Marx, read Marx, Das Kapital and all that, and acquire knowledge and I am convinced by what he is talking about or written about, according to my prejudice, according to my desire, my social environment, my impetus to act socially and so on, so on, so on. Or 5:57 I learn about Catholicism and it appeals to me and I join that, but this whole movement of learning is a very complex affair. I don’t think very many of us have tackled this question. We have only acquired knowledge, any amount and we are piling up knowledge every day, anti or for and so on. So if we could spend a little time this morning to find out what is learning, I think it would be worthwhile. Doesn’t learning begin – I’m just going into it, I’m not... I don’t know how it’s 7:01 going to come out – doesn’t learning imply listening? Right sir? Not only the verbal communication from the educator but also visual perception, reading a page. There visual perception, seeing, reading, learning and hearing is verbal and gathering information – right? – hearing, seeing and so-called learning. Would you agree to that, sir? Oh... I’m not a preacher, please; I’m not... I’m just asking these questions. So learning implies acute hearing and clarity of seeing; not only the clarity of seeing the page but the clarity of seeing the world as it is and listening to the world as it is. Right sir? Will you do that together 8:43 now? Let’s do it for fun, because then it’s worthwhile doing, otherwise it becomes a theory and I abominate theories, personally. Theories have no meaning. So one listens to the world outside one, the events that are taking place, reading the newspapers – if you must – and the prejudice of the editor, the writer, the owner, the whole... whether it is owned by the state or by the individual, it’s the same question. So I listen to the world. Can I listen to the world without projecting my social or 9:40 environmental or my cultural upbringing? (Pause) Then the world is telling me the story; I am not telling the world the story as it should be. Am I...? Right sir? That is, as I listen to the world, the world is telling me: all the political chicanery, the deception, the hypocrisy, the commitments, the liberal, conservative, the communist, the socialist, the middle-liner and so on, so on, I listen to all that. And by listening, what is my action? I must act. Life is action; I can’t stop, say, ‘I’ll 10:46 just listen,’ and do nothing. Out of that listening, what’s my action? There’s poverty, there are extreme riches, class divisions, religious, the divisions that are being brought about by the gurus and so on, so on, so on, so on. By listening to the world, what have I heard? Not the noise, not the rumours, not the headlines, but beyond that what have I heard? Come on, sir. What do you say, sir, what have you heard? Not your conclusion, because that’s another noise. (Laughs) Not your opinion, but actually 12:23 the divisions, the quarrels, the hypocrisy, the politicians, the social... – you follow, sir? – the whole noise round us. I do not know if you have heard – it was in one of the magazines and I used to know some of them – they’re a group of philosophers called the New Philosophers in France, in Paris, who went through Marx, analysed it very carefully, about eight of them, highly intellectual, very well-educated, sophisticated and they tore it to pieces. I’m not saying you should agree or disagree; I’m just stating the 13:16 fact. It began originally during that strike in Sorbonne, you may have.... so on, so on, of which partly we were responsible. And they have said, ‘No social organisation of any kind: liberal, communist, socialist, extreme right, extreme left, middle-line, no social organisation of any kind is going to free man and make him a human being. ’ Right? This is what they stated. Which when we dissolved the Order of... – you know, long ago – he then said, ‘Any organisation will destroy man. ’ This is a... If you understand, 14:27 it’s really tremendously revolutionary; it goes beyond all the communists, all the socialists, all the capitalists and so on. Now, that’s one of the noises you hear, one of the tremendous clamour that’s going on, by expert, specialised intellectuals, pro, cons, this, that, and the other. And you listen to all this, and out of this clamour what is the truth of it? You understand? What do you hear? Achyutji? Somebody help me, join me.
15:17 GN: If the listening is dull or if the listening is...
15:24 K: Oh, if your listening is dull, if you’re not paying attention, if you’re not listening, then, of course, you might just as well – you know? – go and play hockey if you want to.
15:38 GN: Is it possible to the help the person whose listening is dull?
15:43 K: No, I am stating a fact. That is, if you’re dull, if you are indifferent, if you are careless, you say, ‘For God’s sake, I’m only concerned with my own little problem, my husband, my wife, my children, my job, my little more...’ then he’s not listening to the enormous clamour that surrounds us. (Pause) By listening very carefully to the Jews, the Arabs, the communist, the social democrats, the capitalists, Labour and – you know? – liberal, listening to all the political, intellectual, religious clamour: the Pope saying this and somebody else in India saying... – you follow? – what do you listen... what do you hear beyond the rumour? (Pause) Silence? (Laughs)
17:02 Achyut Patwardhan: Sir, the listening has two distinct ploys: one is we are listening to acquire information.
17:18 K: I said listening only; I didn’t say solution, answer...
17:22 AP: No, what I mean is, sir, that there is an unconscious urge that is propelling this listening; this listening is already linked up with the urge to acquire information, so listening has become a form of concentration. You are already scanning and acquiring, picking, what you consider to be significant to whatever you may have in mind.
17:49 K: Which then becomes... I’m taking sides.
17:53 AP: I am saying how this acquiring urge is preventing my listening freely.
18:00 K: Yes sir. I am talking of a man who says, ‘Look, I want to listen not to the rumour, not to the conclusion, not intellectually, I want to listen to find out what is behind all this clamour.’ (Pause)
18:18 Dr T. K. Parchure: If the process of listening implies a story where the words...
18:33 K: No, no. Are you listening? Not implies, are you, Dr Parchure, listening to this enormous noise of everybody shouting, shouting, shouting, from the Pope down to the little guru round the corner?
19:05 Q: I think one becomes selective even while listening.
19:09 K: Ah, moment you are selective you have chosen.
19:13 Q: But that’s what man does.
19:16 K: Ah, I say then you are not listening. Moment you select, moment you choose, say, ‘This I will do, this I won’t do,’ you are still caught in the clamour, in the noise, in the terrific hullaballoo that’s going on.
19:34 Q: Isn’t that a fact?
19:37 K: It is a fact; that’s what we do. Then you join the clamour. Before doing anything, I want to find out what this noise tells me.
20:02 Q: Searching.
20:05 K: Not according to my like and dislike and all that childish stuff, but what is it telling me?
20:14 Evelyn Blau: Since I’m shouting too, how can I possibly hear what it’s telling me?
20:21 K: Come sir. Come and sit down, sir. Here sir; come in, that’s cold. Come on, sir, don’t waste time; please... I’ll keep on asking you to come here, till you come. (Laughter)
20:41 GN: Shantaram, come and sit here, please.
20:46 Q: Thank you, sir.
20:50 K: Sir, I’m asking a question. We are talking about the art of learning; the art of learning lies not only to hear the enormous noise that is going on around me: the political cries, the chicanery, the hypocrisy, the social divisions, class divisions, poor, rich, the communist, the socialist, the capitalist, the Pope, the guru, the newspapers, the magazines — it’s a tremendous world of noise, and I’m listening to that and I’m not choosing, selecting, because I want to hear what lies or the source of this noise. That’s what we are talking 21:50 about. Very interesting question, this; I just thought of it. What would you say? You’re not a communist, you’re not a socialist, you’re not a Marxist, Mao, a rich man, poor... what is the thing that is telling you, out of this noise?
22:18 Scott Forbes: I think what you hear, sir, is you hear what’s common to all of us: you hear men’s minds acting itself out.
22:29 K: Yes sir, what does... what is telling you?
22:32 SF: It’s telling us what we are all like.
22:34 K: Yes. Yes, go on; push it, push it, push it. Move.
22:40 SF: It tells us what thought is doing to us, how we act in the world, how we relate to one another.
22:51 K: Go on, go on.
22:54 Q: They all sound desperate.
22:58 K: Yes sir, include that. (Laughs)
23:02 Q: The divisive mind.
23:04 K: Yes, but I’m asking you; please, you are... Listen sir. Narayan is telling me, shouting at me; what is behind that shout? You’re not getting my point, are you?
23:28 Q: It’s man’s concern for another, or for himself.
23:35 K: If man is concerned another, he would do something about it; he wouldn’t shout.
23:40 Q: Maybe all those shouts and things are the ways he’s experimenting with...
23:45 K: No... What does that mean? You are just... Experimenting with communism, with Marxism, with Maoism, with capitalism, with socialism, liberal, conservative and so on, so on, so on.
23:58 Q: He’s trying; he’s trying to find out.
24:01 K: Yes, what is behind that?
24:04 Q: He doesn’t know.
24:06 Q: He’s not satisfied with whatever is there.
24:11 Q: It’s just propaganda, sir.
24:13 K: Add all that. (Laughter)
24:16 Q: Sir, man trying to categorise... (inaudible).
24:20 Q: He’s exploring.
24:24 Q: No listening.
24:32 K: If I tell you what it is, will you listen? Not conclude; just listen to find out if it is the truth or if it is false. You will know what truth is because when something is said logically, reasonably, sanely and it is actual, it is so. But when you begin to say, ‘Yes... no, I think this is better than that...’ that’s another noise. Not that what I am saying is the perfect noise. (Laughs) What does it all say? (Pause)
25:25 Q: It says man is essentially insecure, that’s why he has to...
25:38 K: Doesn’t it say, sir, that there is tremendous division? Right? Right? Very simple. The capitalist saying one thing, the communist saying... the Mao, the totalitarians, the liberals, the Catholics, the Pope – you follow? – and from that division there’s conflict. By listening very carefully I’ve found where there is division there is conflict: the Hindu against the Muslim... So I have learnt by listening. You follow what I’m saying? Not 26:54 a conclusion; it is a fact; fact is not a conclusion. Am I laying down the law too dogmatically? No, I’m not; I’m just stating the fact. So by listening, there is a learning which is an absolute fact. So learning implies the discovery of the fact. I wonder if you follow all this. Then action is from the fact, not from my opinion and my knowledge: ‘I prefer Mao, I prefer communism, I...’ All that becomes too damn childish. Sorry if you’re a communist or a socialist, somebody. So learning 28:16 is to capture the fact; and you are teaching me mathematics and I’m listening. Mathematics is sequence; sequence and order. So... And I relate it to my life, that is, sequence and order in my life. There is no order in my life, there is a division between me and my wife. That’s the relationship – which you wanted, sir.
29:04 Q: Sir, but in daily life there is so much of conflict, there is so many wrong relationships – if you can put the word like that – people don’t knit together; there’s no rapport, then...
29:23 K: So what shall I do?
29:25 Q: I mean, even if you keep saying that we should find order and sequence in our own lives in order to project it outside, it seems to sound very nice and when we really go about working it, it doesn’t work in all cases.
29:32 K: So what shall we do? You see... No. You see what you’re saying? You are not listening to the whole problem of relationship – right? – which is our daily life. The daily life is our relationship, and I want to listen to the noise of relationship – you follow? – the noise between you and me, between the student and me, between my parent and me, with my wife and me, between husband... and so on, so on; there’s a tremendous clamour going on in this relationship – right? – and I want to learn the fact of this relationship; 30:27 not the ideal relationship, the theoretical relationship, the God divine... all that’s too childish. Right? So what is the fact in relationship? And I’m learning; I am not saying what it should be. Therefore I have to listen to the actual movement of relationship, between... as an educator and the student, as a wife and a husband, as a citizen of a... and so on, so on. I want to listen to the truth – putting aside the clamour – the truth of relationship.
31:28 Q: Sir, when I’m in one of those divisions myself, how am I to get out of it so that I could see it.
31:46 K: Ah! You cannot get out of it.
31:48 Q: Or see it from there.
31:49 K: Ah, you cannot get out of it, you can only learn what it is telling you; it’s not how you want to get out of it. I wonder if you see that.
32:03 GN: Where will you get out of?
32:06 Q: Out of the division.
32:08 GN: How do you? Where? Where to?
32:13 Q: I don’t know how else to do it.
32:16 GN: No; you see, if you say, ‘I want to get out of this,’ where is the place you will get out of? Situation or place or time? It’s not there.
32:21 Q: So how do I see it?
32:23 Q: (Inaudible)
32:26 K: I am married; I quarrel: sex, my own ambitions and her own desires and so on. Right sir? This constant struggle between you and me. Right? What am I to learn... – learn; I’m not saying what I should do – in the very act of learning is the doing. I wonder if you see...
33:07 GN: I think there is a bit of difficulty in this because we’re always projecting doing.
33:17 K: Ah, this is a marvellous thing what we’re entering; come on, sir, I’m thrilled by it. Go on.
33:22 Q: ‘It doesn’t work,’ that’s one complaint; the other thing is, ‘How do I get out of this? ’ There’s always the projection of doing.
33:31 K: I don’t want to do a thing till I learn about it. You are doing before learning. Now, just a minute, let’s go into this question of learning again. I acquire knowledge and then act from that knowledge, either carefully, skilfully, unskilfully, or with considerable diligence; and the other is act and learn. Right? Right sir? I wonder if... Are you getting tired about all this? Please, this is... You know, I’m...
34:25 GN: You have been saying this in the letters, sir: even when you act and learn it is converting itself into knowledge.
34:31 K: Knowledge.
34:32 GN: It’s not that when you act and learn it is superior.
34:34 K: That’s right. So both imply acquiring knowledge and acting from knowledge. Just a minute. And I’m saying, we are asking, is learning merely the acquisition of knowledge or is learning to discover or apprehend or see out of this clamour, out of this noise, out of this tremendous activity of the tongue and all the rest of it, what are the facts? Can I listen to the fact, in spite of the rumour? So I’m saying, what is the noise of relationship? What does that clamour, that extraordinary struggle that goes on between man, woman and all the rest of it, what is it telling me; what is the truth under that? (Pause)
36:05 Pupul Jayakar: Sir, you have said, ‘Can I listen to the fact in spite of the clamour?’ Is the fact separate from the clamour?
36:26 K: The noise is separate – the noise about the fact – but the fact is not...
36:36 PJ: No, but the noise is also the fact.
36:40 K: Yes, of course, it is also the fact.
36:42 PJ: So when you say, ‘Can you listen to the fact without...?’
36:45 K: Look... All right, let me put... The noise is a fact: the socialists, the communists, totalitarian, all the rest, that’s a fact — the clamour is a fact. But behind that, what is the greater... put it, more fundamental fact?
37:03 PJ: Sir, this I would like to probe with you. You are listening; there is the clamour of all that you have said.
37:18 K: Which is a fact.
37:19 PJ: Which is a fact. Now...
37:21 K: Clamour is the illusion, which is a fact. Ah, I mustn’t go into it; it’s rather fun. Go on, go on, go on.
37:28 PJ: Sir, you are using words which I will...
37:30 K: Sorry...
37:32 PJ: Clamour is the fact, is a fact, is what is. Now, the moment you posit a fact behind the clamour – the fundamental fact – is it not dividing the clamour into the superficial clamour and the fundamental thing?
37:59 K: No, I only divided it... It’s actually one movement. But for the purpose of communication, so as for... in communication we become very clear... Just let me finish. The noise is a fact and I want to find out what that noise represents apart from the word, the noise...
38:40 PJ: No sir, I would like to ask you: is that query itself – what does the noise represent? – not diverting you away from the clamour?
38:55 K: Yes; I am only asking it because through the clamour I can see. Right?
39:02 PJ: Yes; so is there anything but the listening to the clamour and the clamour...?
39:10 K: Indicating something. That’s all I’m saying; exactly what I’m saying. I may have put it crudely or in a difficult manner, but to the very listening to the rumour there is also the act of listening beyond... through it. That’s all I’m saying; of course. Now, there is this clamour and relationship – which we began to discuss, wanted to discuss – and can you listen to the noise and proceed further in the noise? Put it any way you like. 40:03 So actually what is our relationship? Are we related at all? We say we are related: my husband, my wife, my daughter, I am the educator, I’m... all the rest of it, and I ask myself, ‘Am I really related to anything? ’ There’s a physical relationship: sex and so on, but actually, apart from the physical contact, is there any relationship? Go on, sir, this is your problem. As an educator, are you related to the student? (Pause)
41:22 Q: There is what I call relationship.
41:26 K: What?
41:28 Q: If I look at myself and the student. I’m looking at only myself and the student; I’m not positing anything.
41:37 K: But what is...? No, what is your actual relationship with the student? What does relationship mean? Let’s establish that first; what does relationship mean? Either it’s purely physical, sensory, therefore sexual and all that; a relationship also means total contact at all levels of our being, between you and me. Contact at all levels: intellectual, emotional, in affection, in care, in taste, in companionship and so on; at all levels there is communication, otherwise it’s not relationship. Yes? What do you say, sir?
42:40 Q: Yes sir.
42:43 K: So I say what is that which makes a total relationship at all levels? You follow, sir?
42:56 Q: We cannot have any division at all then.
43:03 K: Which means what?
43:05 Q: It’s all one; there’s a total oneness...
43:13 K: That’s a theory.
43:15 Q: Well...
43:16 K: Ah, that’s... you have moved away. I’m looking at facts; stick to facts and then you will get into it. If you move away to theory, you’re lost. Your theory is as good as mine.
43:29 Q: But isn’t that what is happening every time?
43:30 K: I said so.
43:33 SF: Sir, does knowledge or memory play any part at all in a full relationship?
43:43 K: I question it. I question whether memory, remembrance plays any part in actual relationship. It does play a part in our daily life.
43:59 SF: But in a full relationship does it play any part?
44:02 K: I... I say, ‘No.’ That’s a different matter; we’ll go into it. Is my relationship to you based on memory? Because I’ve slept with her, she is my wife or my husband, she has given me comfort, I held her hand; it’s remembrance, remembrance, remembrance. Right? Right sir? So is remembrance, which is a fact now in our daily life – I’m questioning that fact – which is, does... should or must relationship... in relationship is there a place for remembrance? It doesn’t mean... it’s not my wife one day and the next day I’m... (laughs).
45:03 AP: Sir, if we are thinking of relationship in the context of learning, would it not be factual to say that relationships are primarily one dimensional?
45:14 K: Yes sir.
45:15 AP: There is a teacher and a student. Now, the teacher-student relationship is usually a one-dimensional relationship, factually.
45:25 K: Yes Achyutji, but I’m talking of relationship with the universe, with nature, with animals, with trees, with... with rock – you know? – with the universe.
45:39 AP: I want to ask, I start with what is the fact to me: that I have started with a one-dimensional relationship — how does it become a total relationship?
45:48 K: I’m going to show it to you in a minute, half a minute; take time. First face... let’s look at the fact. The fact is there is no total relationship. If I’m married, I go off to the office or factory, this, that and the other, come back and... or sex and go on, back and forth. That is what is actually happening; each person is concerned with himself, with his ambitions, with his greed, with his position and so on, so on, and actually there is no relationship, except physical contact. Right sir? That’s a fact, and I say what 46:45 then is total relationship, which means not only merely physical but – you know? – at all levels of our existence? What is it? What is it that brings about total relationship in our life? (Pause) Would you say it is love?
47:25 Q: A concern for each other.
47:27 K: No, no, I’m... Ah no, wait; concern...
47:31 Q: That would be a manifestation, perhaps, of a relationship.
47:34 K: No, no; just first listen, lady. Don’t... Are you listening? Or you’re drawing a conclusion?
47:48 Q: Sir...
47:50 K: Just... let me finish, sir. Are you listening when I say, ‘Perhaps it is love’? (Pause) We don’t know what love is. We know what sensation is, and that sensation is now translated as love: ‘I love my wife or husband, my children. ’ I want to question the whole thing, not just one section of it. Now, the fact is there is no relationship; the fact is in relationship I might respect my wife, I might say, ‘She’s an extraordinary woman,’ and she might say, ‘What an extraordinary man you are,’ and so on, but I’m not talking about that – which is also a fact; you may be an extraordinary woman and you might think I’m an extraordinary husband but that’s... – and the fact is there is no actual, total 49:16 communication. And I’m saying that total communication can only exist when there is love. Just listen to it, not say, ‘What is love? What is...? How do we get it if we haven’t got it? ’ Then that all becomes... Now, if you listen, then what happens? (Pause) Is love something to be learnt? A thing to be... a conclusion, something to be practised? So if you listen, it is there. I wonder if you see the point.
50:30 PJ: You have moved far too rapidly, sir.
50:38 K: Far too quickly? I agree, I agree; sorry, I apologise.
50:40 PJ: There is no... Because I would ask you the first question: I hear, I listen to this, what you have said.
50:51 K: You have listened to it?
50:52 PJ: I have listened to it.
50:53 K: I question it.
50:54 PJ: I... But sir, I say I have listened.
50:58 K: Bene; avanti.
50:59 PJ: I have listened. And I have been listening to what you have been saying and what other people have been saying; what is...? And yet there is no love; let me tell you this. So let me proceed, sir.
51:18 K: I understand, I understand; go on.
51:20 PJ: So sir, I ask what is the faculty which discriminates and sees between the noises which are pouring into me and the statement, which in a way transforms the... – I won’t use the word... (inaudible)
51:41 K: Yes, yes, go on; I’ve got it.
51:43 PJ: ...but transforms the noises. That faculty not being present, it just doesn’t follow, what you have said.
51:55 K: Yes, so how am I... ? I’ve heard you, what you’ve... I’m sitting there and I’ve heard him talking, saying these things. I know I haven’t got it, because I’m still caught in the clamour; I’m still concerned about myself, my... and so on, so on, so on. And he says to me, ‘Listen. ’ I am listening to what? To the fact of the clamour? I’m going slowly, step-by-step.
52:39 PJ: To the fact of the clamour, to the fact of the voice speaking, which is also... I am... Without...
52:48 K: Yes, I’m coming to that, which is: he’s communicating something to me verbally...
52:53 PJ: So is the clamour communicating something?
52:56 K: Yes, communicating to me – I said that – and am I listening to the word or am I listening not only to the word, but listening to the significance of that word, the meaning of that word, the implications of that word, the content of that word? That means am I actually listening to what you are saying? You are saying not only verbally but also you’re saying something non-verbally. Right?
53:45 PJ: No sir, but this is where I would like to ask you about that.
53:52 K: Yes, go ahead, go ahead, Pupul. I...
53:53 PJ: What is it which makes me say that between the clamour of X and this statement...?
54:01 K: My clamour?
54:03 PJ: Yes. There is in the statement... You see...?
54:07 K: Yes, I understood. There is the clamour of that man and there is the clamour of this man.
54:13 PJ: Yes.
54:14 K: Why do you give more importance to the clamour of this man, than to that man?
54:18 PJ: Yes; I’m just asking...
54:20 K: Perfectly right.
54:22 PJ: In the process of...
54:25 K: Just a minute. You have asked a question: that is, why do you differentiate between the clamour of X and the clamour of this man? Why do you...? Ah? Are you asking...?
54:43 PJ: That’s the question.
54:49 K: Yes, that’s the question. (Pause) I’m...
54:56 PJ: Sir...
54:57 K: Wait, Pupul, I’m listening; I’m not arguing.
54:58 PJ: No, that is what – even the listening, one thing arises which I must say – that is...
55:05 K: Very interesting.
55:08 PJ: ...that the listening doesn’t vary. What is communicated may vary; that is, what comes through... I mean, even though there is a wordless listening – there is a wordless listening – so there can never be a discrimination in the wordless listening.
55:34 K: Pupul, you asked a very good question – wait a minute; let’s finish with the question before you come to it. You have asked a question: what is the difference between that clamour and this clamour? Why do you pay attention to this clamour and not to that? Why do you differentiate at all? Right? I don’t.
56:00 PJ: You don’t?
56:01 K: Ah, that’s a fact — I don’t. I say I have listened to that noise with equal attention – right? – and I’m listening to this noise with the same quality of mind. It’s only when – you follow? – when the quality is the same there is no differentiation. Right? Right? Now, why do you pay attention to this clamour? Why? If Mr Shantharam says the same thing: that clamour and this clamour, why do you differentiate?
57:08 PJ: Sir, may I...?
57:11 Q: The image you have is behind it.
57:14 K: Yes. The image... No, no, much more employed in it; much more... Sorry, I didn’t mean Mr Shantharam; Mr X. What is more implied in it? Go on, sir, it’s your job. Go on.
57:36 Q: Your preconceived ideas.
57:39 GN: I think the image explains everything.
57:42 Q: Yes, image...
57:43 K: What?
57:44 Q: The word image explains...
57:45 GN: Through the image you are seeking benefit: you think this is more profitable than another one. In all aspects of listening, I think there is this differentiation of profit, no profit, pleasure, no pleasure...
57:57 K: Punishment and reward.
57:58 GN: ...no punishment; this is the thing which makes listening very difficult.
58:03 PJ: I would like to ask one more question.
58:05 Q: (Inaudible)
58:06 PJ: If I may ask one more question...
58:08 GN: It’s an actual fact, which to some...
58:12 PJ: Is the clue in what is being said and the significance of what lies behind it, or in that non-discriminatory nature of listening?
58:31 K: Yes, that’s it. The question is: the listening is the greatest importance. Right? Right? Which means what? My mind is not clouded, burdened with any conclusion, with any prejudice, with any opinion – right? – with a pre-judgment, without any image. Which means what? Now, I want to go into this a little bit; which means what?
59:22 Q: It has a freshness, an openness to the actual fact.
59:31 K: No, don’t... wait. Let’s stick to the same words. Openness implies... that’s... – you follow? My mind isn’t open; on the contrary, it’s empty. I wonder if you see that. It has no opinion, no conclusion, no theory, no prejudice, no... because I’m listening – right? – I am receiving. Like a womb of a woman is receiving; it isn’t already full. And I say what is the quality of that mind that so listens? That is insight. Right? So my insight – not my insight – insight says, ‘That’s not true, this is true,’ not prejudice, not image, not a personal look or this or that.
1:00:44 Mary Zimbalist: Sir, is the perception of a fact an action of insight only?
1:00:53 K: What is that? MZ Is the perception of a fact the action only of insight?
1:00:59 K: The perception of the fact... No. Insight – if I can use that word, if we understand each other, the meaning of that word – there is insight into something when the mind is uncluttered. Insight into Marxism, insight into capitalism, insight left, right, centre, and all the rest of it, insight into organisations, insight into my relationship with another; that means in the very act of listening my mind is devoid of all the encumbrances. It is free to look. And you might say, ‘Is that possible?’
1:01:57 AP: No, I would like to ask a question, sir, then: has the discriminative process no part in learning whatsoever?
1:02:08 GN: From what you are suggesting, insight has this aspect of discrimination; the insight says, ‘This is true and this is false...’
1:02:20 K: No. Sorry. No discrimination.
1:02:21 GN: That’s right.
1:02:25 MZ: But sir, is there something...?
1:02:28 Q: When you say the mind, sir, the mind is... (inaudible)
1:02:31 K: Just a minute, sir; just a minute. Let me capture this first. I’ve said something which is true, but I must get logic on it.
1:02:37 Q: You’ve said, ‘There is no discrimination.’
1:02:39 K: No discrimination.
1:02:40 Q: As a faculty?
1:02:41 K: No discrimination; just a minute. Discrimination exists only when the false is opposed to the truth. (Pause) When there is no duality... That’s it: insight has no duality. (Pause) Insight has no discriminative quality, divisive quality; discrimination implies divisive. I’ll stick by it. Right.
1:03:28 MZ: Sir, unless I misunderstood, what is it that distinguishes fact from clamour?
1:03:46 K: Clamour is also a fact.
1:03:49 MZ: Yes, but...
1:03:53 K: Illusion is a fact. I might think I am Napoleon, but it is still a fact to me. So anything that thought creates is illusion, except that which is... out of knowledge creates a microphone and so on.
1:04:24 GN: If you say, ‘There’s no duality in insight,’ are you implying that insight sees something as true...
1:04:34 K: That’s all.
1:04:36 GN: ...and something as false?
1:04:38 K: Ah no!
1:04:39 GN: No, no, no; I’m just... I want to say this. And in that there is no duality: it sees the false as false...
1:04:46 K: No, no, there is... False is false.
1:04:47 GN: That’s all. There is no faculty of discrimination coming into being...
1:04:50 K: That’s right.
1:04:51 GN: ...which judges and prejudges.
1:04:52 K: That’s right, that’s right; you have said it.
1:04:58 GN: Yes. (Pause)
1:05:00 K: So I’ve come back: what is your relationship as an educator to your student? You have your problems: money, position, might be sent away, might be... insecurity, uncertainty, and the student is also in the same position. Right sir? So what is your relationship?
1:05:37 Q: There is no relationship, since there is so much of division between the two.
1:05:46 K: No, there is relationship because you are in the same boat.
1:05:51 Q: Oh! (Laughter) Yes.
1:05:57 Q: Quite. (Pause)
1:06:01 K: No, it’s very important to see this. If I am in the same boat as the student, my whole relationship changes. He is conditioned, I am conditioned. So if we see... That’s just it. If I listen to the fact that we are in the same boat, we are; not that, ‘I must be in the same boat. How am I to get into the same boat?’ (Laughs) (Laughter) Right? You see the point? Ah? So when you listen to the statement that you are in the same boat, it’s a fact, and you are in the... therefore relationship [is] immediately established. 1:07:10 I wonder if you see that? So how am I then to teach – a very interesting point arises – how am I to tell the student that we are both in the same boat and the student will listen to me and I will listen to him and help him to see the actual fact that we are in the same boat? Because he will say, ‘Oh sir, that’s just a trick of yours.’ (Pause) How am I to do it, sir? Come on, sir.
1:07:59 GN: No sir, I think... I mean, if the... When the thing is an actuality, I think out of this arises a very interesting art of communication.
1:08:09 K: Right sir.
1:08:10 GN: If I see that I am... When I say, ‘I’m in the same boat,’ it’s a fact – when it’s a fact – out of this comes a communication... (inaudible)
1:08:18 K: Yes. Which means you have actually listened; the very listening puts you in the boat; (laughs) not that you... ‘How to get into the boat.’ Right? Then – wait a minute – we are... if you see the truth of it, the actuality of it, the absoluteness of it – it is absolute; it’s not relative – then how shall I convey this to the student: that he and I are both in the same boat? (Pause) How are you to convey it? How will you...?
1:09:12 Q: Sir, I don’t really have a route to convey; it just happens and then...
1:09:18 K: No, I must help him to understand this. Sir, he comes conditioned – right? If you accept that word – conditioned being social, environmental, religious, cultural, family, climate, food, clothes, all that conditions; and you as the educator are equally conditioned, which means we are in the same boat. Now, how will you help him not only to see we are in the same boat, to uncondition – you...? – to be free of his conditioning? Because this conditioning is separating us. Right? I am a communist, you are not a communist 1:10:09 and so on, so on, so on. So how shall I help the student to understand this basic thing? It’s your job, as educator. What shall I do? What will you do, madame? (Pause) Do you as educator, if I may ask, actually see the fact, not your opinion about the fact or an idea about the fact, the actual, daily fact, that you and I and the student are in the same boat? Or is it an idea which you’re going to convey to him? Idea is different from the fact. Right? If you see absolutely the fact, then how will you convey this to 1:11:22 the student? Then what is your relationship to the student? (Pause) You understand? You have abolished division – right? I don’t know if you follow this... – you have abolished him as a student, you as the teacher; though you have more knowledge about biology than him but that knowledge doesn’t divide you. I wonder if you get this. So how shall I meet him at the same level, at the same... – you follow? – because we are in the same boat?
1:12:21 Q: Then I am not the teacher and he’s not the student, sir.
1:12:32 K: Is that a fact to you?
1:12:34 Q: Yes sir.
1:12:35 K: No sir, don’t theorise about it because then we are lost. What is my relationship to him then – or to my husband, wife, it doesn’t matter – what is my relationship? What is my relationship to nature, to the dog, to the rock, to the tree, to the stars, to the universe, cosmos?
1:13:11 Q: It’s time, sir,
1:13:16 K: Is it time to stop? Yes.
1:13:26 PJ: Sir, what is my relationship to myself? (Pause)
1:13:32 K: That’s a wrong question.
1:13:37 PJ: No sir, I would like to pursue it a little...
1:13:44 K: Yes, pursue it.
1:13:46 PJ: Because I think it is very important to understand the relationship to myself, because only in understanding the relationship to myself one understands the incapacity to relate. Because if you examine the relationship to yourself, you see the distortions which exist. Now, how can there be – being in the same boat – any form of relationship?
1:14:33 K: But, you see, Pupulji, when we are saying relationship – what is my relationship to myself? – that very word relationship is divisive.
1:14:45 PJ: No sir; it is...
1:14:47 K: Just a minute, just a minute...
1:14:48 PJ: But I have divided myself.
1:14:49 K: I know; that’s what I’m saying.
1:14:50 PJ: The should and the is.
1:14:52 K: No, no. Just listen to it. When I use the word relationship, that very word implies division; it’s a divisive word.
1:15:04 PJ: It’s a word in which duality is.
1:15:07 K: Wait, I’m coming to that, I’m coming to that. First I recognise that word is divisive; when I put the question to myself: ‘What is my relationship to myself? ’ I am putting a divisive question.
1:15:24 PJ: But...
1:15:25 K: Wait, this is a fact, fact, fact. So I have put a wrong question, therefore I can never find the right answer.
1:15:38 PJ: But should I not examine that?
1:15:41 K: What?
1:15:42 PJ: Should I not listen to the responses which emerge out of that?
1:15:44 K: I have listened to it, that’s why I’m answering it; I have listened to it very carefully.
1:15:48 PJ: No, the responses which arise out of the very asking of that question.
1:15:56 K: It’s a wrong question.
1:15:59 PJ: It may be a wrong question, but when I ask the question I don’t know it is wrong.
1:16:04 K: But I’m pointing out it’s a wrong question. The question then is: why is there the division in myself as the... what is... the question is...
1:16:19 PJ: The should and the is.
1:16:20 K: Is.
1:16:21 PJ: Which is the real division.
1:16:23 K: Yes; so why does this... ‘What is my relationship to myself?’ implies myself and that, me, is different.
1:16:36 PJ: That which projects...
1:16:38 K: Yes, yes, yes...
1:16:39 PJ: ...and that which is a fact.
1:16:41 K: Yes, which is. So there is this division, which is a fact – right? – and is that division an illusion, which is a fact? So I am inquiring into an illusion, not seeing that it is an illusion.
1:17:12 PJ: Sir...
1:17:13 K: Wait, wait; let me finish, let me finish. So there is only an inquiry, which is: why is there this division? It’s a fact and the fact is also an illusion, so I’ve dropped the illusion altogether – just let me finish – so there is only a movement of inquiry, not: ‘Why is there this division? ’ I have established that; the division exists because it’s a part of our conditioning, part of our tradition, part of our education, part of our culture, religious and otherwise. So that is an illusion, so I’ve dropped that illusion totally. There is only the movement of the me.
1:18:24 PJ: I would like to discuss this particular thing at some depth.
1:18:28 K: Tomorrow morning. (Laughs)
1:18:30 Q: How do you drop that, sir? How do you drop that illusion?
1:18:33 K: I’ll tell you; I’ll show it to you. Do you drop your illusion of a puja? Do you do puja? Ah, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that personally. (Laughter) Why do you do it? Not you, madame. Why do you do it? See the logic of it, first. Logic means careful observation of thought; careful observation without distortion what you’re doing, why you are doing, is it part of your tradition, which means repetition, repetition, repetition, and an escape from something else, or you’re afraid: without it you might get lost? There are many other reasons. So logic says... but you like it emotionally, you like the sensation of it – not you, madame; I’m saying just ordinary... – you like the sensation 1:19:53 of it, it gives you something to do and you feel gratified, comfortable, a sense of being secure because somebody is looking after you — all that is implied in puja, which is an illusion. Can you drop it? That means face your fear, face your loneliness. (Pause) I’m sorry; I’m not asking you. You see, that’s why organisations – which is that – is destructive to man. No organisation has saved man. Right? Catholic, Protestant, communism, Hinduism, the guru, Marxism, no organisation has saved man. Right. Sorry sir, I must get up.
🢁