Krishnamurti Subtitles home


MA79S3 - Can you give all your energy to understanding the image-making machinery?
Madras (Chennai), India - 27 December 1979
Seminar 3



0:20 K: We came to a point yesterday where we were asking whether it’s possible at all to change the whole course of consciousness. This consciousness, apparently, if one observes it in oneself, is always functioning within a groove whether it’s a sexual groove with all its pleasures and pains and all the rest of it, whether it is Rama, Sita, Krishna, Govinda, whether it is 2,000 years of Jesus Christ, that tradition, and the tradition, which was sung in the thirties, that there must be permanent revolution, by Trotsky, and he was butchered and put away. So the mind and the brain — you must know more than I do, I only speak from my own observation of myself, not from books and philosophers, I don’t read any of those things. Apparently, it’s the self-same song, if I may use that word without too much romanticism involved in it, and it seems that we can never get away from these narrow grooves which thought has set for itself. It has set this pattern moving, revolving, going in the movement of evolution, but it’s the same pattern more or less repeated. We are asking whether the brain — please, sir, you’re a biologist so we can go into it — with the others too, perhaps, — whether the brain which has been so conditioned through millennia, forming patterns, living in patterns, changing the patterns — changing the patterns, revolution, we won’t go into all that — has been this evolutionary process, which is another groove, pattern, like Rama, Sita, Christ, Buddha, Trotsky’s permanent revolution in the thirties and so on, whether the brain in itself cannot undergo a fundamental revolution. One has discussed this question with scientists, brain specialists. They say there’s a possibility of that. That the brain, which is so old, has evolved through millennia after millennia, always seeking security, because it must have security whether in Rama, Sita, Govinda or Christ, Buddha, or permanent revolution, it needs security. Apparently, it has not found security either in nationalism or in various forms of beliefs and theories and gods, it has not found it, because it’s still very confused, still groping, asking, searching, losing itself and beginning again. This has been a constant process. And the brain itself has got tremendous energy. That is, technologically the things that it has invented — thought: the patterns of systems, the gods, temples, mosques, churches, created an extraordinary world, in which there is exploitation. We don’t have to go into all that. We spent all yesterday at it, we don’t have to go into it. And we are asking whether it’s possible for the brain which contains all the past memories and experiences, whether that brain, the very cells themselves, can be mutated, transformed. Otherwise we’ll keep on repeating the same pattern: ambition, power, competition. As you pointed out yesterday, the Eskimos never knew competition, the Americans brought it in. Ambition, greed, envy, fear, sorrow — this is the pattern apparently that man has established and is going on. And in this movement he creates all the mess round him — socially, morally, exploiting and all that. So, stating very briefly, not going into too many details which we can, a little later, if you wish, is it possible for the brain cells themselves to change? Not by a gradual process. The moment you admit gradation you are again forming a pattern. I don’t know if you got it. Right, sir? So the question is, whether it’s at all possible for the brain with all the memories — genetic as well as inherited, acquired this storehouse of enormous experience and knowledge, can that be transformed? Then the problem arises: what is the manner to bring this about? Is that all right, sir? — It’s hot — The scientists, the brain specialists like Pribram and others, have said that the whole content of the brain, which I also feel to be correct, what I’m saying is not from books, not from professors, but observation in oneself. All the brain cells contain memory, all of it. There is no part which is free from this. So what is one to do? Right, sirs. Come here, sir, plenty of room. Come on, sir. Occupy the throne. If this is a problem, if this is the real crisis not economic, social, moral, feeding the poor... this is the real crisis. You may agree or you may not agree to this. We are capable, the brain is capable of inventing extraordinary things — going to the moon, you know, sir, I don’t have to go into all that, discovering new scientific things, what is matter, what is anti-matter, and so on, so on. And also it has got extraordinary energy to go day after day, for sixty years to the office, never having a holiday, except for a month. That requires tremendous energy, which has become habit. Then there is that great energy expended in relationship, man-woman, wife and husband, the conflicts between them: the divorce, separation, the agony and the escape from that agony into theories, into... you know all the rest of it. Also, a great deal of energy is expended in the battle of ideas — your idea, my idea, your belief, my belief, my country, your country, and the enormous, brutal energy expended in wars. So what shall we do?
11:43 Questioner: What is the difference between brain and mind?
11:53 K: I think they are related to each other, interrelated. I’m using the brain in the sense not only the memories but mind, which is the sensations, sensory responses, nervous responses, desires, and the great activity and energy that’s required to think, to think, think, think. All that is the mind and the brain. I don’t say I’m using the brain as something separate, but the whole thing is one. We have divided it, but the whole thing is a unit, a parcel, if you like to call it, a package, as the Americans say.
12:55 Q: Sir, we have before us the problem, and we are here together to discuss that problem, whether there is any other approach to our problems than traditional way. But you often refer to ‘thinking together’ without any reference to a subject or object. Sir, what do you mean by ‘thinking together’ without any reference to a subject or object? When we have come together we discuss a problem first.
13:26 K: I understand. Here is a problem which I have posed in front of you. What is our approach to it? You understand my question? I have posed a problem. I may be wrong, I may be stupid, I may be an idiot but I have put a problem in front of you, which is, whether the brain, the human mind can be transformed. Now, that is the problem. How do you approach the problem?
14:04 Q: Sir, one of the first things that occurs is to ask can the brain find an answer within that brain?
14:12 K: We’ll go into it, sir, just a minute. I understand the question. But he said, ‘What do you mean by thinking together?’ — without object, subject and all that — thinking together about the problem, or investigating the problem together, thinking together into the whole question whether the brain cells can be transformed. Not, I agree, you disagree, this is possible, that’s not possible, but to find out together what to do. Or does all this sound crazy?
15:11 Q: Sir, if we don’t discuss with others then we will pose the question and be silent.
15:19 K: I don’t quite understand.
15:20 Q: If there is a problem for us as to whether there can be a total mutation in our brain, if you don’t discuss with others...
15:31 K: Wait, sir. Is this a problem or not?
15:34 Q: It is a problem.
15:36 K: No, is this a biting problem?

Q: Of course, sir.
15:48 Q: Sir, you said this is the crux of the crisis, not the social, the political or the moral. Can you go into this and show how this is the crux of the crisis?
16:03 K: It’s very simple. We are caught in a tradition. The Christians are caught in a Jesus tradition — tradition. Here we are caught in tradition, and thirty years ago Trotsky established permanent revolution, and we are repeating that. Repeating Jesus, repeating... Our brains, our minds, are always functioning in a groove. That’s so obvious. No? Sexual groove... I don’t have to repeat all this.
16:44 Q: I think it would be more useful to go straight into that investigation.
16:51 K: I’m trying to do that.
16:55 Q: Generally in such discussions we get side-tracked into secondary issues, subtle nuances. So I think that we can directly go into the question.
17:09 K: We are doing that, sir. How shall we approach the problem, sir? Let’s make it clear. The approach matters much more than the problem. Would you agree? Just a minute, go slowly. If I approach the problem with a conclusion, I can’t solve it. If I have deeply convinced beliefs, tethered to an idea, a system, a principle, a conclusion, I can’t solve the problem, because the problem then will be dictated by my prejudice. So it’s important in an investigation of this kind to find out how one approaches the problem. Like any scientist. Right, sir? He may have a hypothesis, but he puts it aside and looks through the microscope, whatever he does, and looks at the thing that is happening. So, if I may ask, what is our approach? As a Hindu, anti-communist, pro-communist, idealist believer, non-believer, with all that burden I approach a problem, generally, and the problem remains. So can I unburden all that, first, before I touch the problem?
19:29 Q: Then I think the only way out is, just to approach the problem without any thinking at all.
19:44 K: No, no, just a minute. Don’t use the word ‘thinking’ yet. Please, sir, go slowly. Have I prejudices? This is the problem and it’s very important for me to find out how I approach it. If my beliefs are deeply-rooted whether a belief in Christ, Buddha or Marx or in my own conclusions and my own knowledge, my approach is very simple, which prevents the solution of the problem.
20:38 K: Not satisfy me, satisfy yourself, sir.
20:49 K: Yes. But are we doing that?
20:53 Q: Sometimes.

K: No, no, no. Are we doing it now, sir, in the understanding, in comprehending or finding out whether the brain, mind, consciousness with all its content: fear, exploitation, action, you know, the whole of it. How do I approach it? Do I approach it as a biologist, do I approach it as a specialist in some kind or other, as a bureaucrat, or a religious maniac with all the inanities of so-called religion? How do I come to it? That’s the first question I would ask myself. Because I’m not interested in the problem now, I’m only interested, concerned, to find out how I look at the problem.
22:03 Q: Do you mean that before we approach the problem we must be completely free of our prejudices for or against?
22:14 K: Would you please explain what the issue is in this approach? What do we mean by ‘approach’? If I love somebody, woman or man, do I approach sexually, with a motive? I’m going to have comfort, somebody will be there to cook, bear my children, convenience, comfort, companionship. So if I approach her or him with a motive, I know how it’ll end up — separation, quarrels. And that’s called ‘love.’ So I must be very careful about my motive. If my motive is ten different things, obviously I’ve no relationship with her. In the same way, if I have lots of motives, the problem remains. So can I put aside my prejudice, my conclusion, my hope, — put it aside and look?
24:14 Pupul Jayakar: Look at what, sir?

K: Look at the problem first. The problem being the mind is always seeking security in beliefs, in doctrines, in action, in theories, and always searching for certainty. ‘I believe in Christ,’ ‘I believe in this theory.’ So it’s always wanting security, like a baby, like a child, wanting security. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. We are just stating facts. In my relationship with my wife or husband I want security because security means safety, permanent relationship, I go to the Registrar or an Indian ceremony or a Catholic ceremony, I’m married and it gives me a sense of security. Tradition gives me security, whether it’s modern tradition, scientific tradition or tradition which has been handed down for a thousand years.
25:43 PJ: Sir, you started with the question, is it possible for there to be a total change in the substance of the mind itself? Then you said the answer to that is not important, but the approach is important.
26:12 K: At least, it seems to me. I mean, it’s so obvious. I may be wrong, but correct me. You’re a biologist, there is a scientist, there are other people here who say, ‘Look, what the Dickens are you talking about? Why do you say approach is more important than the problem itself?’ We can discuss it, have a dialogue about it.
26:41 Q: You are saying that one should look at the problem in total objectivity.
26:52 K: Total freedom.

Q: With total freedom.
26:56 K: A scientist does it if he’s worth his salt.
27:01 Q: There can be no two opinions on that I think. But I feel that you go ahead a bit further to demonstrate to us... No, no, let me finish. If you look at a problem in total objectivity,
27:29 K: I’m going to go into that.
27:30 Q: Unless you go further ahead and describe it, I think we’ll be stuck.
27:37 PJ: I don’t think one can state things so simply, that one can observe with a total objectivity.
27:46 Q: My anxiety is this, about the question of objectivity. We know enough and we are — let me finish — but what is very precious and special that Krishnaji is posing before us, I think we should devote more attention and time to that. Because in similar seminars, also, we get stuck up with these preliminaries on which there can be, at least for the time being, an agreement. Otherwise the time will run out and we will never get the precious thing.
28:30 PJ: I’m not trying to argue, but what is it to be in agreement that there is an objectivity of looking? Is there objectivity?
28:39 Q: Madam, I give up. You take over.
28:41 PJ: Either there is objectivity of looking, then one can proceed further. But how can you take it so easily for granted that there is an objectivity?
28:52 Achyut Patwardhan: Are you suggesting that objectivity is not attainable?
28:57 PJ: I am going into the nature of objectivity in perception. Please bear with me. I’m going into the nature of objectivity in perception. How can I stay...? Is it possible? I enquire. I ask Krishnaji, is it possible for there to be a total freedom from all conditioning in perception?
29:36 K: I’m just asking a very simple question. Can I look at my wife or husband without all the burden of knowledge which I have had for the last twenty years? That is the problem, sir, not changing the brain. It begins there. She has hurt me, she has flattered me, she has said unkind things, there are sexual memories. And with that burden, that image, that picture and memories, can I look at her as though I was looking at her for the first time? If I can’t do that, I can’t do the other. Then it becomes mere theory, and nonsense. What do you say, sir, biologist? We don’t start near, near being here. I am the universe, — this is poetic — my world is my wife, my husband, my work, my children, and in that there is exploitation — the poor, the rich, the whole business in that. If I can’t understand that, how can I understand a much more complex problem like the brain? Are we avoiding this and jumping into that? My wife has hurt me. That hurt is deeply-rooted. And I carry that for the rest of my life. I say, ‘It’s not important, that’s personal, that’s irrelevant, but I am concerned with the exploitation, concerned with the universe, concerned with this.’ I have to begin at home, not with the universe. Right, sirs? I don’t know what you think. If I do, I’m escaping from myself.
32:43 Q: I’m reminded of a conversation between two people where someone says, ‘Tell me about the mind’ and the other person says, ‘It doesn’t matter.’ Then he is asked, ‘What is matter?’ and he says, ‘Never mind.’ It may be useful to think about the methodology of doing a transformation as you suggest.
33:16 K: Sir, I’ll go into it, but first I must be very clear that I am approaching with a motive or without a motive, whether I’m escaping from my own problems and therefore casting a shadow on my observations, whether I have a principle, a belief. All that is casting deep and shallow shadows, on the thing which I’m observing. Therefore I must clear that up first.
33:50 PJ: He used the word ‘methodology.’ You may object to that word, but the methodology of dealing with the problem of my husband, my child, anything deeply connected to me, fear, anything deeply connected with me, the methodology is the same methodology with which you tackle the problem of the mind. Unless this methodology is understood, that can never be perceived.
34:25 Q: May I say something, sir?

K: Yes, sir. Please don’t ask me. We are all in the same boat.
34:32 Q: I notice an anxiety here, which I feel. I don’t know if it is relevant to say it at this stage, but still. Say a few people are able to do that and the world still goes on as it is, the pressure of the world is still there on you. And can it be kept at all? This is number one. Two: say I’m a perpetrator of evil. Maybe I can stop it, but if somebody is doing evil to me, as it happens in the world, if I am at the receiving end, jobless and people are hurting me, would I be ready to undertake this process? Would I even find a desire to undertake this process? I may have to postpone until... I may not do it at all. Because I am so preoccupied with just fighting against things. So this seems to me to be the real problem.
35:47 K: Yes, I agree. But we have leisure whether I’m occupied with my job, with my this or that, I have leisure. The word ‘leisure’ etymologically, the word ‘school’ comes from the word ‘leisure,’ from Greek, Latin and so on. And we have leisure. During the leisure we have now, can’t we do this? Not when you go home — not you, sir, I’m not talking personally — when you go home there is leisure, use that leisure. Whether you are occupied fifteen hours a day or whatever in a factory or in the garden, field or whatever, you can have leisure, any amount. So what shall we do, sir?

Q: The urgency may not be there.
37:09 K: That’s all, sir. That’s all. We don’t feel the urgency of it. The scientist does, because his ambition, money, position, rewards, Nobel prize, this prize, that prize, that makes him drive. He is at it all day. So that’s why I say, do we begin near or far?
38:01 Q: Is this urgency felt as a crisis?
38:17 K: The house is burning. Look, the world is in a mess. You may not agree, have a theory how the world should be changed, you might say, ‘Do this system to put the fire out,’ while we talk about it, the fire is burning. We talk about non-exploitation and we are exploiting.
38:42 Q: Sir, if you say this to the exploiter, it means one thing. If you say this to the exploited, the exploited are preoccupied in seeing that the exploitation stops. And hence they will not feel this urgency for the mutation.
38:57 K: So what shall we do?
39:00 Q: I’m not saying it as a problem but as a statement of fact.
39:04 Q: But the whole thing hinges on how it is, not how it should be. The whole thing hinges on whether this is an intellectual urgency, or whether this is something visceral which you feel in your waters. You are not the exploited, are you? You and I are not the exploited.
39:30 Q: You can’t say that.

Q: I can say that because I have enough leisure, enough security, to spend two working days coming and talking about it. If I was truly exploited, if I didn’t know where my next meal was coming from, I wouldn’t have time for this. Please take as a fact that I know where my next meal is coming from. I’m only talking about myself.
40:00 Q: What is true must be true for everyone.
40:03 Q: I can also tell about myself.

Q: I’m talking about ourselves here. We are all here, presumably, after having good breakfasts. So we’re not in a state where hunger is our biggest problem.
40:16 K: I didn’t. Go on.
40:20 Q: So you can’t object to being called an exception! We have come here presumably out of a certain sense of urgency. Now if we say, ‘If I talk about this to the exploited who doesn’t have a piece of cloth over his body, he won’t listen’ I think that’s irrelevant.
40:44 Q: I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is, if this is true, how slow this is going to be because a large number of people may not even have the leisure to...
40:58 K: So what shall we do?
41:01 Q: Their whole time is spent in surviving and coping with it.
41:07 Q: I am with you. But my question is this: let’s assume that only 10% of the population has the comfort and leisure. Let’s talk familiar numbers.
41:23 Q: I have no quarrel with that, but I pose it as a situation in which we all find ourselves.
41:32 AP: Why don’t we reduce it even further and say that the validity of a proposition has first to be tested on myself? Therefore I am the whole world because I am the guinea-pig on which the whole world is experimenting. And I’m willing to be that. I’m willing to say, if I have the urgency, that I am that. As far as the entire human race is concerned, it’s operating through me. Therefore the urgency in my case is not deviated by any diversion as to whether it is applicable to the mass. Because unless the basic proposition itself stands vindicated we have no ground for any further elucidation of it. Therefore we should go into what Krishnaji is saying only as directly applicable to our own psyche.
42:36 Radhika Herzberger: We can assume that we have the time now.
42:42 K: That’s what he said. It’s twenty past ten. Sir, if I may ask, — to use a rather crude word — is it a gut urgency or an urgency up here? An intellectual urgency or an urgency from the very depth of your...? If that is so, can we proceed from there? You can say what you like, sir.
43:29 George Sudarshan: If the urgency is a gut urgency, there is no question of putting aside my views on it. You mentioned earlier, in twenty years of the past, in relating to you or to anybody else, can I forget about all the things that have taken place? Can I put aside all memories? And can I then relate to a person and a situation just as it is? If it is intellectual, I can play this game. I’ll put it aside now. We are all scientists. I heard an observer’s comment about how he reacts to things. In science, everything that has taken place up to the present time is in fact taken as a hypothesis.

K: Hypothesis, quite right.
44:31 GS: All observations, theories are taken as a simple hypothesis and then you ask the question: Does it work or does it not? There is no question of putting that aside. If somebody comes up with a theory of the universe, and says, ‘I don’t believe the theory of relativity Newton’s equations, I have variations’ I’m not likely to be interested because in some sense one takes into account the past. On the other hand, that does not prevent you from making a new step. Putting something aside is a luxury that is only possible when you have some other aside and there is somebody to put it aside. If you are totally, completely involved in this there is no question of...
45:20 K: Are we involved in it? That’s all my point. Am I involved completely in the resolution of this problem? To be completely committed to it means all this. I recognise that I cannot be committed if I have all this. So I put it aside. That’s a phrase which implies it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t enter into my observation. That’s all.
46:03 Q: Hasn’t that to be qualified by the fact that the word ‘belief’ in science is not a very safe thing to enunciate? Usually a scientific truth is an approximation to the truth. And what Krishnaji was saying about carrying the burden of belief, unquestionably, is probably a problem worth tackling. That’s why I mentioned the question of methodology, that there may be things like beliefs which one may have to simply examine and ask if whether they are worth banking one’s life on.
46:58 K: Could one say, ‘I don’t know what to do about this problem. I really don’t know’? Could we start with that?
47:10 Q: Yes. I would imagine that it may be a very interesting path to ask whether belief in something is really wise. I would guess not.
47:32 GS: I’m reminded of a story that the late Heisenberg once told me. Heisenberg as a young man had gone to Berlin — in the mid-1920s when quantum theory was in the offing — he had decided that most of our problems in physics at that time came about because one introduced unobservable things like electrons, orbits and their transitions. Heisenberg attempted to reconstruct a whole new class of theories from only observables: intensities, frequencies of spectral lines, etc. He gave a seminar and was applauded, as a bright young fellow. Einstein was in the audience and said, ‘I was very interested in your talk but would you please come to my apartment, I would like to talk to you further.’ And at the apartment Einstein told him, ‘You would like to make your theory entirely out of observations. That is the only statement I took exception to because it is not theories being made up out of observations because without theories we have no observations.’ Heisenberg was so taken aback by this turnaround that he thought deeply about it as the principle of impermanency. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle came out from this consideration. It seems to me that there are no ways of observation or functioning without having some theory. All theories are in flux, but there have to be some working hypotheses. To say, ‘I am in crisis,’ to say, ‘I have made progress,’ to say, ‘I have not made progress,’ all contains some kind of belief.
49:27 K: It’s not a theory when my wife hurts me. It’s not a theory, it’s a fact. When I see war as a fact, there’s no theory about it. When I see exploitation, there is no theory about it. And I say to myself, ‘If I am not clear in myself, thinking or having theories has no meaning, with regard to the transformation of the mind. That’s all I’m talking about, not about science. So can we proceed a little bit?
50:22 PJ: You come down then to the whole problem of observation and its nature, because unless we can probe into the nature of observation,
50:43 K: Pupulji, can I observe the tree, the you, the mountain, the river and the things that are going on in the world, without naming it first? You follow, sir, what I mean? Just to observe, not naming it. Naming means associating and all the rest of it. Can I look at my wife without association? That’s an art I have to learn before I talk about this question. I can learn it instantly, if I want to. If it is my gut responsibility, if the urgency is there, then I can do it instantly. But if you say, ‘Explain to me, let’s discuss it,’ we’re off. To me, this is the most central issue. I know all the peripheral causes, I know all that, I’m 85. I have watched it all. So I say to myself: is it possible to change this central thing which is creating all this? I may be a marvellous scientist, but I’m ambitious, competitive. I’ve talked to many scientists. They are terribly competitive. ‘That man gets the Nobel prize, my God, why didn’t I get it?’ The jealousies, the quarrels, the machinery of intrigue. Oh, sir, I don’t have to tell you all this. So I say, how will man change? He knows the house is burning, eternally theorising who burnt the house, what caused it, never saying, ‘Let’s put it out’ — metaphorically. So I say to myself, my brain is the result of a million years. It is not my brain. So I start with a sense of great humility when I say that. Great humility, because my brain is not mine, it has evolved through time, centuries. That brain, that mind has accumulated tremendous experience sorrows, fears, anxieties, competition, everything. And with that mind I’m trying to change exploitation in the world, with that mind I’m creating a new structure. That structure is from the same old brain. So I say, unless this changes that will be the same pattern repeated, only modified. Instead of being black it’ll be white, one day red, so on. So, can this brain, mind, undergo without any pressure from outside, because the moment you have pressure, it’s back into the old system. Can this mind, without any pressure, any motive, transform itself? You may say, ‘That’s impossible, you are loony, you are idiotic.’ Maybe. I say it is possible. Like Einstein’s quantum theory, everybody probably said, ‘What nonsense!’ They sneered, a few of them, but he went at it. If somebody sneered at what you were doing, you wouldn’t be affected because you went at it. Here, I’m not saying I’m Einstein or a marvellous man, I say it can be done. Let’s talk about it, go into it.
55:47 Q: If, as you say, the house is burning, there’s one ally in this whole business, which is the principle of natural selection operating on life. I would imagine that there could be two scenarios. The house may burn and man may be unfit to live on this planet. In which case, natural selection will take care of it and eliminate those situations.
56:21 K: But I’m not going to wait till then.
56:23 Q: I agree. So maybe the way is to buck natural selection and try to not let that happen. But no matter what, the fire will be put out, one way or the other.
56:42 GS: I was told that it is not always good to put out fires. I was told that the California redwood forests, there used to be natural fires because small trees would die, brush would come out and eventually it would become very dry and burn. The Forest Service decided that this was an undesirable thing to do, and so they used to clear all these things away. Then after a few years they found that in fact they were interfering with the natural ecology of the place. The fire would burn and it would burn off the brush, and the big redwood trees, being very tall and strong, would survive. So it kept the place clear. But the Forestry Department was interfering with this natural process. Talking about wars, I want to talk a little callously about war.
57:37 K: No, no, I’m not.
57:38 GS: I took a walk this morning with Dr... in the grounds. We were admiring how nicely the garden is kept. I noticed that a lot of grass was cut. Terrible thing! Poor grass, it wasn’t bothering anybody. The mango trees weren’t being deprived of anything, but the grass was cut. The gardeners were working, cutting off the new shoots. Poor things, they had resisted all attempts at stopping their growth, but they are still hopefully putting forth new shoots.
58:12 K: But the cut grass, sir, they are taking it to their cows.
58:15 GS: Yes, the cows are happy, but I’m saying, ‘Poor grass’ When the birds come and pick up worms from the ground we applaud them, we’re happy. The birds sing and we say, ‘How beautifully they sing,’ and we say that they keep things under control. In fact, we interfere a whole lot with nature. And when somebody interferes with our lives, we say, ‘Oh, very callous. This should not be done.’ In fact, I also feel that in some ways natural selection involves a considerable amount of destruction.
58:54 Q: This is like the grass cutting the grass.
58:58 GS: (Inaudible)
59:04 K: I don’t want my son to be killed by somebody, by the government as an army, or by you, a somebody. I want my son to grow up happily. Let’s come back to the problem, instead of all this, shall we?
59:25 PJ: I wanted to raise a question which you’ve said. You said the crux of this whole matter is: can I look at a tree without naming it? Because in this whole process of naming seems to be the blockage to observing. Is it a question of my ability to look at looking?
59:59 K: I don’t quite follow, sorry. I must have been off for a second.
1:00:04 PJ: Is it a question of my looking at looking? You were asking, is it possible to look at a tree.
1:00:13 K: Come nearer. Is it possible to look at my wife or husband without all the things I’ve accumulated about her?
1:00:25 PJ: I can start this by saying the moment I identify as X, the name is there, the identity.

K: Yes, all that’s implied.
1:00:38 PJ: Can there be a looking without this process of identification?
1:00:43 K: Obviously.
1:00:46 PJ: Does that involve my looking at looking? Please go into it, Krishnaji.

K: No, no, no. You are making it complicated.

PJ: What does it involve?
1:00:57 K: What is involved? I have created an image about my wife and she has created an image about me — hurt, flattery, sex, pleasure, domination, possessiveness, identification, and all the things involved in relationship. The image. Can’t one observe that image? Keep to simple. Don’t complicate it yet. First observe.

SP: Of course one can observe.
1:01:40 K: How do you observe it — as an outsider observing, or the observer is the observed? The image is the observer. I have created an image — not I, thought has created this image — during fifty years, thirty years, ten days. Is the image different from me? That’s a legitimate question. Is that image different or something which somebody has created? Or that thing, that image, is me? No, not theoretically, actually. That image is me. So the observer is the observed. What takes place then? Before, there was the division as the observer and the observed. That is, somebody is exploiting me, I am exploiting somebody else. The circle goes on. So the observer is the observed. Not an idea, but an actual fact of investigation. So what happens when this sense of division has come to an end? The observer and the observed. The division is non-existent therefore the observer is the observed. Then what takes place? We never come to that point. We are all arguing. When we do come to that point, what happens? What actually takes place is, that energy which we have wasted in division — control, suppression — that energy throws light on the fact: observer is the observed. That which is the problem has dissolved. Like, when under a microscope, when you put light on the thing, the thing itself changes. I may be scientifically wrong, don’t let’s enter into that field. So, I’m saying we are wasting energy in conflict, struggle, opinions, all that goes on. When all that energy is not wasted — wasted as the observer and observed — that energy explodes any issue that’s there. For instance, my wife or you have hurt me. Who is hurt? The image I have about myself. You call me a fool, or flatter me, same thing, and that image is hurt. Then I say, I must remove that hurt, or build a wall round myself not to be hurt more, and so on, which gradually leads to isolation. Now, the hurt is the image. The image is hurt. I am the image. So, what happens? The image is not different from me. The realisation of that fact throws light, attention, energy onto that fact and that disappears. The hurt is completely gone, or the flattery, which is the same, two sides of the same coin.
1:07:00 Q: After this realisation, what kind of relationship exists then?
1:07:07 K: What kind of relationship with my wife then?
1:07:09 Q: Wife or anything else.

K: No, I started with that. What is my relationship with my wife or with anything else? Sir, may I tell you? Will you do it? First do it. If I tell you in that relationship there is complete love, it means nothing.
1:07:44 Q: Then automatically the present structure in all places: political, economic, social, cultural, will totally collapse.
1:07:54 K: No, no! Totally can’t collapse.
1:07:59 Q: It cannot collapse, sir?

K: No, we are misunderstanding.
1:08:12 AP: I said it is better not to apply what we are thinking because it distracts.
1:08:22 K: Look, sir, up to now my wife and me are two entities, two different entities. The exploiter and the exploited — two different entities, the government and me, war and me. I say this division is the most destructive factor — Germans, Russians, the Pakistani and so on. So where there is division, there must be conflict. That’s a law. Who creates this division?

Q: Me.
1:09:19 K: Obviously, sir, because my wife and me. I begin there — nearest. My wife has created an image about me and I have about her and this is called relationship. I say that’s not relationship, it’s just two images at each other. Is it possible to remove the image? Now, who is the remover?
1:09:54 Q: Myself.

K: No! Our tradition says ‘me’ is different from the image. But looking at it, going into it, one sees the image is me. Right? So what happens when there is the realisation that there is only image? When I bring complete attention to that, the image totally disappears, not to be manufactured again. Then what is my relationship to my wife? She has got the image and suppose I haven’t got the image. What’s our relationship?
1:10:50 Q: She has no image or I...?

K: No, no.
1:10:55 Q: That is the crucial point.
1:10:57 K: I am telling you, sir. Go into it a little bit, go into it. She’s my wife. Up to now we have been divided — image-image — and these images have kept us apart. These images have been the cause of jealousy, anxiety, fear, possessiveness, all that abomination that goes into relationships. Now, when there is the realisation that the image-maker is himself the image and if you bring your complete attention to that, the image-making ends.
1:11:44 K: Then what is my relationship? She has got an image about me and I haven’t. What happens? Go into it, sir. See obviously what happens.
1:11:57 Q: I think I become defunct.
1:12:10 K: Defunct. What does that mean?
1:12:14 Q: I have no action.

K: Oh, no!
1:12:20 K: No, you haven’t done it, and you make theories about it!
1:12:25 Q: Then if that is the question, Krishnaji...
1:12:28 K: Sir, I’m not being rude or anything.
1:12:30 Q: No, no. Even if you are rude, I don’t mind, but I only want to understand. That’s my anxiety.
1:12:37 K: Sir, have I realised, first, that there are two entities?
1:12:47 Q: Up to that point I follow you.
1:12:49 K: Up to what point, sir?
1:12:52 Q: When the image-making ends for all practical purposes. In my relationship with the world, I end.
1:13:00 K: No! A totally different relationship takes place.
1:13:07 Q: That’s what I want to know about.
1:13:10 SP: Sir, I question whether the image-making machinery ends. You can see the functioning of image, you can see that the maker of the image is image himself, and then it can stop for a while. But I question whether the machinery has stopped.
1:13:28 K: Which means the machinery starts only when there is inattention.
1:13:36 Q: Sir, I think we can take it as granted that, except for one person here, for everyone else attention is at best momentary.

K: Yes. Momentary, and therefore the image continues.
1:13:51 K: Can you give all your energy to the understanding of this whole machinery: the image-making and the image-maker, and see that the image-maker is the image? Can you give all your attention to that? Which means no theories, just attention. To attend means to give all your capacity, energy, sense, everything, to see that fact.
1:14:36 Q: One of the thoughts, or the words that come in are the words of Krishnaji himself.
1:14:48 K: I understand but why should it? The fact is my relationship with my wife as two entities, the division has created the mess. Whether it is division between socialists and worker, all that: division. Like two nations fighting each other. It’s the same principle carried right through. I begin with my wife. If I can understand that deep principle, I have understood the idea of division. So I say, can this division end? Right, sir?

Q: Yes, sir.
1:15:36 K: I say it can end if you do this. But you won’t do it! Not that you should do it. Not that you should accept what I’m saying. I’m not your authority, I’m not your guru.
1:15:54 Q: Is it enough if it ends in one person?
1:15:56 K: See what happens, sir. That’s my point. You have no image and I have an image. What’s our relationship? Go slowly, sir. What’s our relationship?
1:16:08 Q: The other person may feel that this is another kind of bullying.
1:16:16 K: Yes, the other person thinks it’s another kind of bullying, this is a subtle escape from me, in order to avoid sex, to avoid something or other.
1:16:29 Q: Or holier than thou.
1:16:33 K: She says, ‘Come back!’
1:16:37 Q: So what happens?

K: Wait, sir. ‘Come back!’ And you know you can’t come back, come back in the terms of division. Then what happens? Just follow it, step by step. Either she says, ‘What has happened to you? You don’t love me anymore. You have become indifferent, cruel, cool. You don’t want sex...’ She begins, or he begins. Then what happens? Either you say, ‘Look, calm down. Let’s talk about it.’ Right? ‘Let’s talk about it,’ to the wife or to the man. The man who has no image talks to the wife, says, ‘Look, I’m not running away, I’m not escaping. I have somehow managed not to be hurt anymore. Not that I’ve built a wall round myself, I’m not going to be hurt.’ But she’s full of anger with me. What’s my relationship? Oh, you’re missing the thing, sir. Stick to it, sir. What’s my relationship to her?
1:18:19 Q: Nothing.

K: No! I say to her, ‘Let’s talk about it.’ I hold her hand. I say, ‘Let’s talk about it. Let’s go into it. Listen to me. I don’t want to hurt you. I really love you, but I have no image about you.’ What takes place, sir?
1:18:48 GS: Krishnaji, what is your theory about what happens after?
1:18:54 K: No theory.
1:18:56 GS: Are you talking about empirical information?
1:18:59 Q: May I ask it in a different way? What is the fact that you see after that?
1:19:05 K: Compassion, love.
1:19:09 Q: Does it get reciprocated?

K: No! She hasn’t got it.
1:19:16 K: The man who has no image, perhaps has compassion, love, and she doesn’t. Or she has and he doesn’t.
1:19:29 Q: That is the only point on which I want an explanation from you. What is that compassion?

K: Oh, my God! What is love? Just a minute, sir. Find out, sir! Love is not identification. Love is not attachment. Love is not something that makes confusion in my relationship. She makes it or he makes it. So I say to my wife, if I have no image, I say, ‘Lady, come, let’s sit down.’ I’ll talk to her. I’ll hold her hand and tell her what it means to live a life without image, which means compassion. You say what is that nature of compassion? I say, begin with caring for somebody. Caring, which means paying attention to somebody. It doesn’t matter who, your cook, your husband... — pay attention, care, look. Begin there. You see what our difficulty is? We don’t do this ourselves. We want to go round it, theories, ‘Tell me what compassion is.’ Think of saying such a thing! Sorry, sir. That means we have never loved anybody. Right, sir? We’d better stop, sir. We’ll meet again this afternoon.