SD71DYP1 - Can human beings radically bring about in themselves a psychological revolution? home
San Diego, California - 25 March 1971
Discussion with Young People 1

Text-only version

0:20 Krishnamurti: What do we do now? Do we discuss, or do I talk first, a little bit? I thought this was a discussion, a question and answer. So shall I talk for a while, and then you want to discuss?
0:59 I don't know how serious you are. Because the world – not only in this country, but in Germany, India, etc. – they tell you things happen. (inaudible) Human beings are not really being educated at all, but are merely trained to some kind of purpose... (inaudible)
2:23 And physical revolution – that is, killing people in order to bring about a different kind of society seems so primitive and futile. Because physical revolution has not produced any kind of different society. It has produced tyranny, dictatorship, bureaucratic dominance, and so on.
3:01 Looking at all this, one feels the crisis is not in the environment but the crisis is in consciousness, in the whole structure and nature of man. And the culture that man has created is his own responsibility. What he is, the culture is. He is the world and the world is himself, there's not the world separate from you and me. We are the world. And to bring about a radical change, a psychological revolution in the psyche is far more important than the mere physical destruction and killing people for an ideal, and hurting innumerable people in order to carry out what you think is going to produce a marvellous world. 4:36 So, revolution is in the psyche, and whether man can totally transform himself. I think that is the major question, and probably that's the only question – whether man can transform himself totally and therefore bring about a society that is wholly different from what it is now, both morally, religiously and so on. And if one is really concerned and serious about this, not just merely wanting to be entertained, psychologically or intellectually, then we have to face this problem – and it is the only problem.
5:59 Because religions have divided man. Though they talk about peace, they have divided man. There are the Hindus, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Muslims and all that business – division. There is geographic division, as nationalities, with their sovereign governments and armies, navies, ready to fight and destroy. And there is not only religious, economic, patriotic divisions but also there is a great deal of division in ourselves, we are fragmented human beings. 7:02 And where there is division there must be conflict. And that's the culture, the society in which we live, of which we are a part, which we have created out of our own activity. This is a fact, both historically, if you are interested in history, and actually. So the question is whether you as a human being – not as a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, which is all nonsense – whether you as a human being can radically change so as to bring about a different kind of moral society. 7:56 The present structure of society is immoral. And whether education, whether human beings can change radically is the question. So, if you are interested in that, and serious, then perhaps we could discuss, through questioning and inquiring together, not merely listening to the speaker but share together this question, investigating this enormous problem, which is the total problem of our existence. Not merely at the technological level.
9:00 Think of the absurdity of man going up to the moon and playing golf up there. The triviality, the absurdity of all this, and all the religious nonsense that goes on, a vast circus, entertainment. It has nothing whatever to do with the real religious life. And to live a life which is utterly free of all violence. It is only in peace, it is only when the mind is completely at peace then you can have a creative activity – not in frustration.
10:08 So if you are inclined seriously to discuss this, that is whether human beings can radically bring about in themselves a revolution – not dependent on the environment, a psychological revolution, because that's the only revolution, there is no other revolution. And whether the human mind – which has lived for so long in violence, in brutality, in destruction – whether that mind can undergo a mutation so that we can live at peace. Not in constant conflict between human beings and therefore as collective human beings, and wars and all the rest of it.
11:55 So, can we discuss that? As our time is limited – I believe we have to be here only till ten past twelve or quarter past one – sorry. So, shall we talk about that? Or would you like to talk about something else?
12:19 Questioner: Krishnamurti, I'd like to ask, since there are these divisions and many of them exist between us as individuals, say, male against female, individual against collectivity, how do we start to overcome the divisions, or should we just concentrate on changing our own inside perception rather than trying to change others? Do we start with ourselves and stay there or do we try to bridge some sort of gap in our relations with our environment and other people?
13:00 K: I'm afraid I haven't understood the question. Either it's my not understanding Americanism or you are talking too loud. I'm sorry, could you make the question little more brief?
13:21 Q: Where do we start to overcome divisions? If we go into our closet and stay there, can we be happy? Or how do we relate across the division to other people? How do we change?
13:43 K: I'm sorry, I haven't got it. Will somebody who has understood the question...
13:52 Q: I think what she is saying is that people are marooned.
13:59 K: Is that better?
14:00 Q: Is that better for you?
14:03 K: For me? I don't care.
14:05 Q: I'm just trying to ask: How do you start for change – inside yourself? Or how do you try to communicate with other people? Do you try to change them or do you concentrate on yourself?
14:18 K: Right. The question is: how do you change yourself? Do you concentrate on yourself or concentrate on others? How do you bring about this change?
14:44 K: Is that right?
14:48 Q: Yes.
14:53 K: Isn't oneself – you, the community – the rest of the world? You are the world. And if you change, you inevitably bring about a change in consciousness, in the whole structure of our thinking and our being. Now, how do you change? That's the question. Right, madame? First of all, what do you mean by that word 'change'? Change to what? Change to a future pattern, to an ideal, or according to a particular system of thought? Or by learning about oneself non-analytically, by learning about oneself not through analysis – if you're interested we'll go into that – to bring about a change – how is this possible? 16:20 So the question is, first, to change not according to a pattern, because then it's not a change, obviously. A revolution according to a set pattern is not a revolution. Change through analysis is not change at all. So we have to understand the whole question of analysis.
16:56 K: Do you want to go into all this?
16:58 Q: Yes.
17:01 K: It's up to you. Analysis implies, doesn't it – please, this is serious. If you want to go into this seriously, we have to pay a great deal of attention. Analysis implies, doesn't it, an analyser and the thing analysed. Right? Now, who is the analyser? Is the analyser different from the thing he analyses? Or are both the same? If both are the same, then what is the necessity for analysis at all?
18:08 Analysis implies a division between the analyser and the thing analysed. And in that division the analyser is constantly exploring, investigating, inquiring into the thing he analyses. If the analysis is not perfect, complete, then whatever he gathers from this analysis must be distorted. Right? Are you following all this? That is, if I am not capable – either individually or professionally, psychologically, as an analyst – if I analyse myself and if that analysis is not very clear, complete each analysis, finished, then that incomplete analysis leaves a misunderstanding, a distortion, it isn't complete, and therefore the next analysis of myself is furthering of distortion. That's one factor in analysis.
19:57 The other factor in analysis is, that it involves time. That is, analysing myself endlessly, day after day, week after week. That's what is implied in analysis, both professionally, and if you are interested, do it in yourself. So it takes a time. And during that time other factors enter. Right? I can go on analysing myself till I die, and in that interval of time there are other incidents and happenings taking place. And therefore each analysis, unless it is totally complete, must inevitably be a factor of distortion. 21:13 So, is there another way of observing without analysis? Because analysis really doesn't bring action. On the contrary, it limits action, it perverts action. And a man who wants to act totally, completely, not fragmentarily, has to find a different way which is not analytical but an observation in which there is total action. May I go on? Are you following this? Please, we are sharing this together. You're not just listening to a poor unfortunate speaker, but we're sharing the problem together.
22:52 Which is, analysis – both psychoanalysis and psychological, etc. – any form of analysis is a postponement of action. I think one has to understand this completely, because if I am analysing myself or being analysed professionally, I am not acting, I am waiting. And life demands action, not postponement. So I must find a way of total action, not fragmentary action, an action that would be complete. And is there a way of acting without the process of analysis, which is postponement of action? Is there a way of observing myself so completely that, that very observation is complete action? Am I being heretical – heresy? You understand my question?
24:42 I want to live a life – not a personal life, because my life is the whole of the rest of the other lives. My life is your life – and I really mean it. This isn't just a theory. This is an actuality, it's what is. What I am is what you are. I am the world and so the world is me. Not in theory, not as an abstraction but as an actuality. And I want to change myself totally, and I see analysis is not the way. Then what is the way?
25:48 Can I observe myself so that in that observation there is no division as the observer observing? You're following all this? In analysis there is the observer and the thing observed, which is to be analysed. In that there is division. Is it possible to look at myself without this division as the observer observing the thing which is going to change? Have I put my question clearly? Because I totally repudiate all analysis, because that has no validity, except unless one is neurotic. And perhaps we are all a little bit neurotic. But as one observes rationally, sanely, analysis is not the way out.
27:28 Then I want to find a way of looking at myself, because myself is the result of all human endeavour. I am the result of the culture in which I have lived, and that culture is created by me. 'By me' in the sense, my parents, grandparents, by the whole society in which I have lived. I am the result of all that. I am conditioned by all that. And to change myself, I see analysis is not the way at all, that is, introspective and all the rest of it. So what is the way to observe without the division? You've understood? Have I made my question clear?
28:21 Q: Yes.
28:25 K: Good.
28:29 K: So, I must find out how to observe without division. How to observe a flower, a cloud, a tree, you or myself, how to observe without any division. And I must find out what causes the division.
29:09 What causes the division? Opinion. Conclusions. We are sharing this together, please. Opinions, conclusions, formulas which I may have, or the images that I have built, verbally and non-verbally. I cannot look at that flower without naming it, saying it's a sweet pea, or I say I like it or don't like it.
30:02 Can I look at that flower without any image? Right? Can I look at you without the image which I may have built as; 'Oh, those Americans'? Or you may have built about this speaker; 'Oh, those Asiatics with their romanticism, with their superstitions', and all the rest of it. So can I look – please, this is tremendously interesting and vital – can I look at that flower without the naming of it, without like and dislike, but just to observe? Can you do it?
31:20 There, it's fairly easy because that doesn't affect one, but to observe oneself without the image about oneself demands tremendous watchfulness. To watch oneself without any justification, without any condemnation, just to observe. Then if you have such observation, then there is no division, then there is complete action and that action is total change. Because then I am not a Hindu or a Christian or a Buddhist or a scientist; the division. Then I observe myself actually as I am.
32:33 Then I inquire: what am I? Not what I identify myself with, that is totally irrelevant. Whether I identify myself with India or with America or with a certain group of people, or with certain conclusions, ideas, are totally irrelevant. What is relevant is what am I, so that I can change that whole structure of myself, because that is what is the content of the whole of my consciousness. And the content is consciousness, the two are not separate. So what am I? What is the content of my consciousness? You're following all this?
33:54 The content of my consciousness is all the things man has accumulated as knowledge, as experience. He is a Hindu, he is a Negro, he is a black, he's white, he likes and dislikes, violence – all that he is – his bank account. Right? That's what you are, aren't you? No? You're rather doubtful about that, are you? If you are a Christian, believing in certain dogmas, you are the result of propaganda of two thousand years.
34:56 Wait, please. Don't waste your time clapping.
35:03 As the Hindu is the result of five thousand years of propaganda. You are that – your beliefs, your dogmas, your rituals, your Americanism, anti-this – you are all that. Your furniture, your house, your motorbikes and your cars, your characteristics – all that is you. You may say, 'I am more than that.' You may say, 'I am God, I am the higher self,' but it is still part of thinking. No? So you are all that. And can that content of what I am be totally changed, so that I live not fragmentarily, not immorally, but with tremendous quality of total perception? 36:29 Which is not individual, which has nothing to do with personality, which is all too silly. Because I am concerned with the total change of myself, myself being the world, because I am the world; you are me. You have your sorrows, your bank accounts, your quarrels, your jealousies, envies, misery, confusion.
37:07 Now, how to bring about a change in that? And that change must be complete, both at the conscious level as well as the deeper level, the so-called unconscious level, in the cave. So, it is possible only when there is an observation in which there is no division. To perceive, to see, to observe that flower without the image – the image being the word, the name, the like and the dislike of that flower – just to observe it. And to observe with that same quality of mind in which there is no image, in which there is no valuation. Just to observe without any kind of repression, identification. 38:34 Because where there is division there must be conflict. Isn't it? Where there is division between the Hindus and the Muslims they are at each other's throat. Where there is a division between the communists and the non-communists, that brings conflict. The Catholic, protestant, the whole division that exists in the world, the black and the white and the pink and the blue. So is it possible to observe oneself so totally, without any division? The speaker says yes, it's absolutely possible. And then only, in that observation there is total change.
39:41 Any other question, sir?
39:44 Q: Yes, sir. Today you said we're immoral. Can you hear me?
39:51 K: Come near. I can repeat the question.
39:55 Q: Today you say we are immoral. Then you say we become moral. Won't our morals conflict?
40:13 K: With the immorality of society?
40:16 Q: Yes.
40:17 K: Yes sir, I've got your question. You say our society is immoral. The questioner says, 'If I become moral, won't it create conflict between the moral person and the person who follows the morality of society?' Is that right, sir?
40:43 Q: Not necessarily the morals of society; the morals of oneself, the individual.
40:49 K: All right. So, what is morality? Can we approach it that way? What it morality? What does it mean to be moral? To follow a pattern laid down by the religious sanctions, or convenience? What do you mean by morality? Is it an idea, a concept? Is morality unrelated to love? Can one be moral through the cultivation of thought? Is morality the result of thought? Come on, discuss with me. Is love the result of thought? Is love pleasure? Is morality something that you cultivate day after day and produce a marvellous moral entity? Is goodness, the flowering of goodness, is it the process of thought? 42:51 Come on, sir. And is thought – which we all worship because we all think the intellectual person is the most extraordinary individual, to us, thought is of the highest importance – is it? And thought obviously is the response of memory, and memory is always the old. And so thought is always old. And thought can never be free, because it is rooted in the past, which is memory, experience, knowledge. And if out of that past, out of the field of thought morality comes, is it moral, or is it merely convenience? Come on sirs, discuss.
44:24 Q: Can I ask a question on what you're saying to us right now?
44:30 Q: Would everything you're saying now relate to your idea of content of consciousness? Would everything you're saying right now relate to your idea of content of consciousness?
44:42 K: Does what you're saying now relate to the content of consciousness? I don't quite understand that question.
44:56 Q: In other words, what I am saying is your morals, your goodness, or something like that, is this all part of your content, or is it the result of your content?
45:09 K: Is it part of the content, or... Look, let's be simple about this. One has to live an orderly life, not a confused, fragmentary life. One has to live an orderly life. Now, how is that possible? The orderly life is the most virtuous, moral life, obviously. Now, how is that order to come about? Is this order a blueprint? Something I follow day after day? It can't be, then it's a dead thing, it's a mechanical thing. Then, how am I to live a life that is completely orderly? Which means harmonious, non-conflicting, non-fragmentary. And to live in that order is moral, is virtuous, and it is not a blueprint. 47:00 Now, how is this to come about? It can only come about when I understand the disorder of my life. Through negation come to the positive. That is, as I observe that flower without any distortion, I observe my life which is confused, which is disorderly. And in the understanding of that disorder, naturally comes order. Then that order is moral. So I have to observe without division the confusion, the disorder, the fragmentation of my life, the contradictions; observe those are the causes of my confusion, disorder. Can I look at them without any distortion of like and dislike, or saying, 'This is bad, this is good, this I'll keep, this I won't keep'? 48:32 Then if I can so observe this disorder, out of that understanding comes order. Look, the speaker is not trying to convince you of anything, not making you agree or disagree, but just to observe. Because our life, our daily life is so contradictory, so fragmented, so confused. And that's a fact. And to observe this confusion, this disorder, this sorrow, this misery. And out of that observation, learning, comes order.
49:40 Q: Sir, how is it possible when I am in confusion, to see clearly?
49:51 K: Right. I understand, sir. How is it possible when I am in confusion, to see clearly? When I am confused, is it possible to see things clearly? Obviously not. Please follow this – we'll go through the very end of it. When I am confused, whatever I do is still the result of confusion. Therefore, the first important thing is clarification of this confusion. Right, sir? What do I do when I am confused? Do I choose? Because if I choose, all choice is based on confusion, isn't it? 51:02 It's only the mind that sees very clearly; such a mind has no choice. It's only the confused mind that chooses. I don't know if you are following all this. So, my first job is not what to do out of confusion, but to stop action. Because I am confused, I don't know. I have been taught, I have learnt, I've been broken up, confused, miserable, contradictory, I've suppressed, done everything. What am I to do? First, I must stop choosing. Say I'll be a communist, or I won't be a communist. 52:11 I will go and kill or not kill. I'll be this or that. All that is the result of confusion. So, when the mind is confused, don't choose. Look, what do you do when you're confused in a wood? When you are lost in a forest, what do you do? You stop, don't you? You stop and look around. You don't say, 'I must do something.' You don't commit yourself to any kind of activity, to any path – you stop and look around. Therefore, don't commit yourself to anything. When everybody is committed around you – they're activists, they contemplate, they meditate – they do everything when they're confused, and out of that confusion their meditation, their activity furthers that confusion. 53:40 So the first thing is to stop. Don't be committed to anything. Which means your mind is already clear, isn't it? No? Please do this! Do it, and you will see the marvel of it! Because then you are alone. Then out of aloneness there is clarity, and then you act. So a mind that is confused doesn't choose, doesn't commit itself, and because it doesn't choose it's already clear. Because it doesn't commit itself to any action, it's already clear. Therefore, out of this confusion – when there is no choice, when there is no commitment, there is no saying, 'I will do this, I won't do that' – comes great clarity. 55:08 And that clarity itself is action.
55:16 Q: What do you do when they draft you?
55:22 K: What do you do when they draft you? What do you do? Not what do I do, what do you do? Sir, this question – is it time for me to stop? No, I'm not frightened of answering that question, I just want to know what time it is. When have I to stop? Would you tell me when I have to stop?
55:59 Q: In five to ten minutes.
56:01 K: Right, sir. What are you to do when they want to draft you? What are you to do? Look, this is really a very complex question. I'm not avoiding it, please. Just look at it. What am I to do? I don't want to kill. I don't want to kill a human being, for my country, for my God, for my political leaders – I personally don't want to kill any human being, or any animal to eat. You understand? So what am I to do? I have to live in this world, the world that is brutal, violent, always engaged in war both inwardly and outwardly. What am I to do? 57:26 Go on, let's think it out together. What are you to do? What is the greater question than: what am I to do? Do I really want to live a life in which there is no violence at all? You understand my question? Violence, of any kind. So I have to understand the meaning of that word. Conformity is violence. No? Come on, sirs. Isn't conformity violence?
58:31 Q: Yes.
58:32 Q: How so?
58:33 K: How so? Conform – try to conform to a pattern, to public opinion, to grow long hair, short hair, take drugs, no drugs – conform. Because, that is, the denial in confirming, conformity is the denial of actually what is. Right? No? Come on, sirs, move!
59:17 Q:Yes.
59:21 K: Conformity. The so-called discipline. Please listen to this carefully – so-called discipline. Discipline, as it is now, is to suppress, control, conform, copy, imitate – all that is involved in that word, isn't it? That word means to learn. The word itself means to learn, not to conform. And to learn I must have a very clear mind, I must be curious, I must be passionate, I must be tremendously vital. And I cannot be vital when there is contradiction in myself. You're following all this? So, am I violent? Violence means ambition. Violence means competitiveness, wanting to be somebody different, more. Worshipping the goddess of success. 1:00:57 All that implies violence. Do I really want to live a total life of non-violence? That means no hate. And it also implies no fear. Where there is fear there is aggression, there is violence. So, do I want to live a life of that kind? And if it is really genuine, not just superficial, not just accommodating a thing, then I will answer when the people come to draft me. Then my answer will be a true answer. I don't know if you follow this. That is, really, completely want to live a life in which there is no violence. Which means a life in which there is no will, which means no resistance. You don't know all this.
1:02:16 Q: Sir, can you hear me?
1:02:18 K: Yes sir, but I don't know if there's time. Am I to stop, sir? Yes, I am to stop. I'm awfully sorry.
🢁