Krishnamurti Subtitles home


MA81S1 - What will break the chain in which the brain is caught?
Madras (Chennai), India - 14 January 1981
Seminar 1



0:18 Achyut Patwardhan (AP): Sir, if I may start. There has been a widespread degeneration, observable all over the world in many countries, but particularly in this country it seems that we are reaching a point of crisis where the very survival of this culture seems to be in jeopardy. But reflective minds have come to realize that though there is a great deal of attention being paid to the misuse of resources like water pollution and the pollution of air, and all the other forms of pollution, basic to this is a certain degeneration at the very source of the human mind, at the source of the human brain. Would it be possible for us to explore whether this source of degeneration can be traced, can be located, and a process of cleansing it be found; whether there is or there is an alternative process of regeneration upon which we might come, in trying to discover the nature and extent of this vast process which seems to be bringing the entire civilization of our times to an end.
2:35 Krishnamurti (K): Go on, sirs, I'll come in a little later, you carry on.
2:53 Questioner (Q): If I may go into that question Patwardhanji has raised, the question of degeneration. It seems to be everywhere, but here it seems to be more than anywhere else. This question was asked last year and it has set quite a few people thinking I have gone into this question and I should like to say, before we go into this question with regard to this culture, this Indian culture, whether we love. I'm asking this very important question because this is fundamental to the question that has been raised now. The word love seems to be a rare word in our culture. In Rig Veda, in the Upanishads and even in the Gita there is no mention of the word love. Now, coming down to the anthropological reality, language, I speak two languages, Telugu and Kannada. In these two languages, and I think is is true of most of the Indian languages, there is no word about love. We borrow a word, a Sanskrit word, and we add a suffix to it and make it into a word. This is true of two languages that I know. For instance, we have this word prema and we use the suffix isu or madu, which is premisu or premamadu, which is 'love do'. That's how you use that term. And I think, even in Hindi, I think the people who know the language should correct me, the usual word that we come across, even in films is, prem karna, mohabbat karna. Once again we use a word do, we borrow the word from Sanskrit, love, and we say, 'love do'. And I think it's a very serious kind of a lack with us. We know there are certain cultures where they don't have the word lying. If they are so primitive, perhaps, they are so primitively honest that they don't have the need to prevaricate, to tell a lie. And we also know last year that among the Eskimos they don't have this word competition. So if we, in this culture, have the need of the word, the word love, how is it that we don't have this word? Does it point to you something very fundamentally serious, a certain very profound lack in us? I should like to discuss this.
5:58 AP: I think this would side-track the discussion altogether because our whole question must be focused on what is. You have yourself begun by a statement that we don't have this. When we don't have it, anything we say about it is just speculative. So I say set it aside for the time being and let us start with where we are, which is, that we accept the fact of degeneration, and if we knew the causes we would deal with it. So I say we do not know the causes of it. Is it possible for us to start our exploration with a mind which says, 'I see the fact of degeneration, I don't know its causation, I am willing to explore'?
6:59 Brij Khare (BK): I think this is too fast for me, because when a carpenter begins his work in the morning he sharpens his chisels and examines his hammer, and I am wondering if we can do the same thing at this time before we get into the content as to what we are going to make. What is it that really is our tool that the carpenter has? This would be my interest or as Krishnaji says...
7:36 PJ: What would you consider the tools of enquiry?
7:39 BK: Yes, this is what I'd like to find out. Personally, I think it has been indicated, along with the observation of the problem, and that is it's the human brain.
7:52 PJ: No, the tool. That is, is the brain the tool of enquiry?
8:01 PJ: No, if the brain is the tool of enquiry and the enquiry is into the movement of the brain,
8:13 BK: This is the characteristic for the human mind or brain to really be an observer for itself.
8:23 AP: I can see your point. All that I said was that I open a map, and then I say that we start from a point which is shared by all of us, that there is this fact, you cannot explain it away, the fact of a very rapid process of degeneration which might almost threaten the survival of this culture. I start with this and I say, is it possible for us, without any other hypothesis, to explore in such a way that we can discover whether it is possible to cleanse the brain of that source from which this pollution starts.
9:15 PJ: But taking these two questions together, is it possible to say, are the tools which are available to us adequate to view even this pollution which, as we were talking about, are they adequate to even go into the nature of the pollution? If they are of the essence of pollution themselves, can they investigate the pollution, and therefore can we investigate the tools? I think that is the...
9:51 BK: Yes, precisely. The carpenter has to examine what sort of tool he has, what he needs, he has to sort it out-the chisel, the hammer and what not. What do we have today, at this moment in time, to examine precisely the question that has been raised?
10:08 Q: I was wondering whether that might be even a more difficult question, that is, the question of the tools themselves, whether one can take up something which we can see, open the map as it were, and get to an area where we see disorder, shall we say, and then ask what flows from that, and see what sort of causes and so on. But there was one point- I was thinking about this question of degeneration itself, somehow it seems to import a sort of time-scale. For instance, one can look at the same facts and say that it is not degeneration but it's an evolutionary process or something like that, clearly there is a disorder, perhaps, there is disorder, yes, but degeneration...
11:10 B K: I'm sorry, but you have moved away from the examination of the tool. You're talking about the making of it.
11:16 Q: I know but I was wondering whether the examination of the tools by itself takes us anywhere.
11:26 PJ: I don't think the two questions are independent of each other.
11:29 Q: That's right, it's not.
11:31 G. Narayan (GN): And speaking of the tool, I think the language is a very important tool.
11:34 AP: I don't want to bring in any issues to prejudice the enquiry. That's why I did not raise the question of any tools or anything, but I say, I discover that the tool is inadequate. I put it aside.
11:50 Sunanda Patwardhan (SP): But before you do that, he says, 'What are the tools of enquiry and what are we examining?'
11:55 AP: I will say that I can only open the map that there is this very rapid process of degeneration which threatens survival. Now, how do we understand it?
12:11 BK: Suppose I disagree with your observation.
12:13 AP: You disagree that there is a degeneration?
12:15 BK: Suppose I do, then the question...
12:17 K: You can't suppose, sir, either you say there is no degeneration, not suppose.
12:25 AP: If you say there is no degeneration, this problem is totally imaginary, that is one position, which is quite arguable, but I feel that...
12:35 PJ: But Achyutji, you must see this point of Dr Khare. There is some validity in that point. That is, we are stating that there is a state of degeneration, you are stating that there is a state of degeneration, both outside and within; that it is part of the very condition of man today, the degenerative process having itself accelerated and therefore degeneration being at our doorstep and within one. He says with what will we enquire into this, because unless you ask yourself the question, with what you will enquire, you will keep on going round within the circle of degeneration. So the question is not incorrect.
13:27 AP: As I see it, man is continuing a process of technological advancement which is gathering momentum and he is caught up in that process so that at one end he seems to be really advancing, but at the core, the core is decaying, and this decay at the core is the cause of all the conflicts, all the confusion, all the disintegration of society that we see, and I say, is it possible not to be taken up, not to be caught up in the illusion that because man has gone to Saturn, etc. or sent a satellite to Saturn, not to be caught up in a phoney movement which seems to be progress, but to come to the source, which is that at the root something is dying, and that is something vital, which has given meaning. When we start this enquiry, I want to start it with minimal assumptions, minimal pre-suppositions and the tools will reveal themselves. No tool is barred.
14:50 Q: Don't you think it is a...
14:52 S. Rinpoche (SR): What is the real intention of regeneration? That is not very clear to me.
15:07 AP What is the intention of degeneration?
15:10 SR: We are speaking of regeneration, we are speaking of regeneration only a process of change, that all this exists, that we may call a regeneration or we may call it evolution. And also we are speaking of the tools of examination. If we are trapped in the differentiation of the tools of examination and the degeneration as a separate thing, then we may not arrive at any conclusion.
15:48 K: Quite right.
15:50 SR: So I think we should approach the question with some different angle and different viewpoint.
16:03 K: May I also interrupt? I think we have more or less, all of us have agreed there is degeneration, there is corruption morally, intellectually and also almost physically. There is chaos, confusion; the wars bring misery, bring despair, where to think is to be full of sorrow. Now, do we approach this present condition as a Christian, or as a Buddhist or as a Hindu, Vedantist, Islam and so on, so on, or do we approach this problem without taking any stand, without taking any position as a communist who goes up to a certain point, he agrees that sorrow is the burden of mankind, but he says to change that sorrow you must recondition society. So if we could put aside-I am just, I am respectfully suggesting this -if we could put aside all our stands, our positions, then perhaps we would be able to look at the problem clearly. The problem is fairly simple. Knowledge, either in the technological world or knowledge in the psychological world, knowledge which is handed down both scientifically in the technological world and knowledge handed down through tradition, through books and so on, may be, knowledge may be the root of all this. I am proposing this, please discuss this. I am not laying down, the speaker has no position, he doesn't take any position, as a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or any other-communist, socialist and all the rest of it. One perceives this chaos throughout the world: mismanagement economically, socially, at the government level, at the poorest, lowest level, there is utter confusion and despair, uncertainty. Right, sir? Now, that is the problem. How do we approach it? Right, Achyutji, may I...?
19:02 AP: Yes, sir, that's why I did not want to posit any other problem about which tools we should use, which tools we should reject, I said all this will reveal itself in the ongoing process of the enquiry if the enquiry is sustained by a critical, sceptical spirit, which is quite clear that I do not have any answer to this degeneration with me. If I have, if I imagine that I have read Vedanta and the answer is in this, or if I imagine that I have Marxism and there is an answer in this, and there is some-only modifications are necessary and that something has... we need a revival in which some deadwood should be cut, that means we are starting with some kind of a conditioning which one is willing to modify under the compulsion of the enquiry. This position, I feel, would vitiate our enquiry. Therefore I did not want to say anything beyond stating the problem which is based on a fact, of observable fact, and in the course of the enquiry the limitation of each tool will reveal itself.
20:29 PJ: But Krishnaji has brought in a very- a statement, an element into this enquiry which you have posited, which demands a great deal of examination. That is, that knowledge per se, technological knowledge, skill -see the implications of it-technological knowledge, skill, all that the human brain has acquired through millennia, is itself the source of the degeneration. First I must take that challenge. He has put a challenge into the situation. And how do I respond to that challenge?
21:34 K: That challenge may be utterly wrong.
21:36 PJ: No, I must respond to it, I must either discover the truth of it or the...
21:45 BK: I still say that perhaps we are anatomically, biologically, physiologically inadequate to deal with the situation: social, economic, political, and we don't have - I'm afraid to use the word- appropriate tools, because obviously we have created a behemoth all over the world, not just in India, but the pollution in Madras is not as bad as in Los Angles. That is more killing than this pollution. What I'm suggesting perhaps is, if we can really see if there is a root cause to all of this.
22:32 K: That's what we are asking ourselves, sir. What is the root cause of it?
22:44 AP: I would agree with what he says now.
22:47 K: That is, what is the root cause of it? Let's stick to that for the moment. Not introduce words like tools and all the rest of it.
22:53 BK: Alright, root cause.
22:55 K: And what is the root cause. Root cause. We are not examining the symptoms.
23:01 BK: No.
23:02 K: We all know the symptoms. Can we find out, through sceptical investigation, what is the root of all this.
23:20 SR: The effect of knowledge on our mind or on our brain is to be examined I think.
23:29 K: Yes, sir.
23:31 SR: And then the root cause, perhaps, from somewhere may be found out. Our approach, our consideration about knowledge, acquiring knowledge are under the conditions of the knowledge and tradition. We've put our mind far from the reality and what is the effect of knowledge on our mind perhaps could be discussed more clearly.
24:22 K: Sir, could we discuss, if I may suggest, what do we mean by that word knowledge?
24:31 K: Sir, I beg your pardon, sorry, sorry. Jagannath Upadhyaya (JU): Will Now Speak in Hindi - 1 min 40 secs Translation attempt by AP follows.. AP (Translates) There are two points from which we look at this problem. One is the individual and the other is society. Problems arise in the individual and problems arise in society and they confront the individual. The individual in himself is partly an entity in himself but largely he is the product of society. So...
27:10 JU: (In Hindi)
27:20 PJ: I think Kapila wants to translate it.
27:23 K: I don't understand...
27:25 PJ: I think they would both know Hindi very well...
27:33 Kapila Vatsyayan (KV): What Jagannath Upadhyayaji has said is that we have to begin this enquiry from two points: one, the individual and the society. The individual has one dimension which is an intrinsic dimension and there, he is free-the word that he used. At the same time there is the other dimension of the individual which is in constant interaction with society. And in order to examine the question, therefore, he wishes to draw our attention to the problems of the individual and the society first separately, then the individual in relation to himself on one level, the individual in relation to society on the other level, and the relationship of the processes within the society. That's it.
28:40 JU: (Hindi - for 1 min 24 secs).
30:05 KV: He wishes us not to go back into the ancient past but is confining himself to the last three or four hundred years of civilization, and the problems that have arisen in civilisation during the last three, four hundred years. And he believes that if we do that perhaps we might be able to identify the causes, and in this he wants to stress that it is the nature of the relationship between the individual and the society, and what are the moments when the individual acquires greater importance and what are the moments when society acquires greater importance. And what is the nature of that relationship with one to the other, and where the balances are disturbed. Earlier he had made one other statement, which is probably relevant to what he has said now, and that is that the transmission of whether it is knowledge or experience, that also has to be seen in relation to these two points that he has made.
31:30 K: May I? I question whether there is individual at all. I question-when I say I question I am not asserting anything- I question whether society is not an abstraction. What is actually is human relationship, relationship with each other. You may call that relationship society, but the fact is relationship between him and another, intimate or otherwise. Now, let's begin to find out whether we are individuals, or we are programmed to think we are individuals, which has been encouraged by all the religions: the soul according to the Christians and so on, so on. I am questioning very deeply whether the concept of an individual is actual. You may think you are an individual and you act as an individual and all the problems arising out of that concept as an individual, and then you pose the question, society and the relationship. But society may be a total abstraction. What is real, actual, is the relationship between two human beings, which creates the whole, monstrous society.
33:34 Q: Does this word individual...
33:36 K: Just... I don't know... You translate it to him.
33:40 AP: No, he understands English, sir, he only doesn't speak.
33:43 K: Forgive me if I...
33:44 KV: No, I think that is fine. Mr Upadhyayaji, would you like to say something?
33:53 Radha Burnier (RB): You are implying then that all relationship is corrupt, because, for every individual the relationship is between what he considers to be himself as an individual and...
34:07 K: That's the whole point.
34:09 KV: And the otherness of the others.
34:10 K: Of course, that's the whole point.
34:12 RB: So there is no relationship which is not corrupt.
34:15 K: That's my whole point.
34:18 SR: That is the real point which we all must try to understand.
34:31 JU: (Hindi).
34:47 KV: If I may sir, with your permission. (.. Hindi - 1min 27 secs)
36:16 JU: (Hindi for 1 min 15 secs).
37:32 KV: Sir, what he has submitted is that the individual is not.
37:40 SP: Is an illusion.
37:43 K: He is agreeing to what I'm saying?
37:45 KV: Yes agreed.. but he says there is the delusion that he is and that there are two level delusions that one is working on.
37:56 K: Aha, ha, ha.
37:57 PJ: See, if I understand it, he says, individual is not, but he deludes himself that he is.
38:07 K: Ah, but that's what I said.
38:09 PJ: Society is not, but there is the delusion that society is. Now, while these two delusions of the individual existence and society's existence exists, this conflict between the two also must be resolved.
38:32 K: Ah, ah, ah...
38:34 PJ: Am I right?
38:35 Sunanda Patwardhan (SP): You are right.
38:36 K: Is that correct?
38:38 SP: Correct.
38:39 G. Narayan (GN): Do I understand that though the individual is an illusion and society is an illusion, we have made a reality out of it and all the effects of it are fact, is that what...?
38:55 SP: Yes, that's right, that's...
38:56 PJ: ...deluded ourselves and so it is a real thing.
38:59 GN: It's a real thing, though from a more realistic or a deeper appreciation, it is illusion, but as we are in it and it's real to us, all the effects of it are there.
39:13 K: Are you saying then, all this, my brain which has been programmed -individual, society, and the individual right, individual freedom, individual expression, individual fulfilment, and society opposed to individual, community, all the conflict- are you admitting that the brain has been programmed? Don't call it an illusion...
39:41 GN: Programmed, yes.
39:42 SP: That's it, that is right.
39:44 GN: It's programmed, that is...
39:45 K: Now, wait a minute, I haven't finished. Programmed to think in this way.
39:50 GN: Yes.
39:52 K: Therefore it's not illusion.
39:54 GN: No, the programme is real.
39:55 K: Programme is an illusion, not the result.
40:02 AP: This is the most vital point, sir, this is the most vital point.
40:05 K: What is that? I've forgotten .
40:06 AP: To say that the individual is an illusion or to say that society is an illusion is to say that we have created an imaginary problem which we are discussing speculatively. Actually we are discussing an actual situation of man, the condition of man. The condition of man is a fact, the condition of man is, that he is degenerating, that he is unhappy and in agony, in conflict, and on the point of destroying himself. This fact cannot be denied.
40:39 K You're missing my point, Achyutji, you're missing my point.
40:42 AP: No, Krishnaji says something very important. To the traditionalist he says and to the Marxist he says...
40:48 PJ: To me he says... not to the traditionalist.
40:51 AP: No, I used these words because he has brought in a word, programmed which I think is a very key word.
40:59 PJ: But Achyutji, please see this. He says don't call it illusion, it is not illusion in that sense. The brain has not created it. The brain itself is that, because it has been programmed to be that.
41:25 K: Would you kindly repeat what I said? I've forgotten what he said, would you kindly repeat?
41:37 RB: It's very simple, you said that it is not an illusion, it is just programming.
41:41 K: Programming, yes. Why do you call it an illusion? If you call it an illusion then the programme is the illusion. So if you admit programming the brain is illusion, you wipe out the whole thing. I don't know if you... Would you kindly explain?
42:06 KV: Now, this word programming is important.
42:13 KV: (Hindi)
43:17 K: That's the word. That's correct. The computer is programmed and we are programmed.
43:22 KV: We are programmed, that is what I'm talking...
43:24 AP: (Hindi).
43:33 JU: (Hindi).
43:42 K: What is the point?
43:45 SP: He wants to say something now.
43:51 JU: (Hindi). (Various people speaking Hindi)
44:48 PJ: He says if I leave that If I wipe that out then what is relationship?
44:56 K: Ah, that's the first thing, not if, not when and if and all the conditional phrases which you use, but do we actually realize, do we actually see the fact, not the theory of the fact, but the actual fact, that we are not individuals.
45:22 JU: (Hindi for 3 mins 21 secs)
48:45 SR: My very basic submission still remains here. My point is that whenever we speak of a relationship we always take for granted there are two points, in between which we speak about the relationship. So my submission is that before examining the relationship, we must examine the two points. Leaving the two points, speaking about relationship, then the whole process becomes sort of academic and this becomes more complicated. So we must come back to the point.
49:40 PJ: See, sir, as I understand it, Jagannath Upadhyayaji said -then this was the follow-up of that- that you have been saying that the self, the self-centred activity, the individual, has-he elaborated it a little more- has to be negated at every point-wiped out. Therefore it has been brought up. But when we observe whether it is the outer or the inner -outer sometimes predominates, sometimes the inner predominates- but the interaction between the outer and the inner, that is, the interaction between the two-let me bring it into- the interaction between the two is always evident. There is always an interaction between the two. You can call it an individual and society, you can give it any name, but there is an interaction between the two.
50:53 K: I question that.
50:54 PJ: This is the point. Therefore if you say wipe out the individual and just talk of relationship, as Rinpocheji said, you cannot do it because you have to examine the two points.
51:10 K: Yes, that's right, that's right. Yes, sir. I'm not the only speaker here.
51:17 BK: I have a question from Upadhyayaji: does this individual that you speak of, (vyakti-Hindi for individual), does that include the animal? Animal is included?
51:31 K: Oh, yes, oh, yes.
51:35 BK:Therefore when you...
51:38 K: Of course, of course.
51:40 BK: Because we are describing the symptom of this animalistic mind, let's put it this way, therefore you cannot say that we should talk about only three hundred, four hundred year time period but it goes back to the beginning when we were living in the trees.
52:00 K: What is the point, sir? I don't quite follow this argument.
52:02 PJ: No, the whole point is, sir, that it is no use your saying that it is programmed. You say it is programmed, and then where do we go from there?
52:14 K: Ah, I'll show you where we go from there, if you move. But do we accept that, not...?
52:21 PJ: No, we cannot accept... As long as there are two...
52:24 K: I question that.
52:25 PJ: So, sir, this is the basic difficulty. As long as they are two...
52:31 SR: That is our question.
52:33 K: Ah, yes, sir, that's our question.
52:35 PJ: You are saying it is programmed?
52:38 K: No, I am saying there is only relationship.
52:42 PJ: Now, you're removing relationship out of the context of the two.
52:48 K: Yes.
52:49 PJ: You see, you're removing...
52:50 K: That is, the brain relating itself to the past.
52:57 PJ: Who relating itself?
52:59 K: The brain itself relating, brain is the past.
53:02 PJ: No. Then who is relating to whom?
53:06 K: It is not relating to anybody. It is functioning within its own circle, with its own area. This is obvious.
53:16 SP: Sir, but my brain, this brain is relating itself to the other brain to which it has certain similarities.
53:22 K: No, no, no...
53:23 PJ: You see what he's saying? You are never related to another.
53:27 K: Never.
53:28 PJ: The brain itself creates the other and relates to that other.
53:33 K: Yes, that's right, that's the whole point.
53:36 BK: But, sir, you said...
53:38 K: Ah, wait, let's get this clear, I am not quite clear myself.
53:44 SP: No, we have to get this.
53:47 GN: There is, he has said that the brain...
53:50 K: Repeat what I said, would you mind?
53:53 PJ: No, just now what was said...
53:54 GN: I am repeating, I'll come to what you said.
53:56 K: Yes, please, just a minute.
53:58 PJ: Just now what was said.
54:01 GN: May I say something so that...
54:02 AP: No, he wants you to repeat what he said, first.
54:06 GN: You are saying that there is no relationship because the brain creates the other and then relates. In fact there is only the human brain.
54:21 K: Sir, No, the brain is only concerned with itself-right? -its own security, its own problems, its own sorrow, its own... And the other is also, but the brain is never related to anything. There is no other. The other is the image created by thought which is the brain. I don't know if you...
54:57 BK: I see that, I see that.
54:59 K: Let's go slowly, sir, let's go slowly.
55:02 RB: You are saying that relationship itself is part of the programming.
55:07 K: No, no, I wouldn't call it programming. Move away from that word for the moment.
55:11 RB: There is no other. There is no relationship.
55:16 K: That's right. No, there is no relationship.
55:20 RB: Yes, relationship is always between two...
55:23 K: But there is no relationship, I've said that.
55:25 SR: Yes, that is the point.
55:27 SP: You mean, the other does not exist?
55:29 RB: There is no other.
55:31 K: There is no other You exist, but my relationship with you is created by the image I have created about you, and therefore my relationship is with the image which I have. Therefore it is my brain which... etc. , etc...
55:54 PJ: The whole happening is within my brain.
56:01 K: Oh, obviously, Pupul, it's so clear!
56:04 BK: Sir, is there a part of the brain that is also questioning it?
56:07 K: Ah, wait, sir, wait. No, no... Let's get this clear first, before we go into a little more... Is this clear, sir: my relationship to you is based on the thought which I have about you, the image that I have created about you? The relationship is not with you, with the image which I have, therefore there is no relationship.
56:41 SR: Yes, it's very clear.
56:44 JU: I would like to understand this.
56:48 K: My God, do you realise, Pupul? Pupulji, do you realise what we are saying? That's a tremendous... I don't think I capture it.
57:00 PJ: I think it is clear.
57:01 Q: Very clear.
57:03 K: No, sir, it's clear but I don't think we see the immense significance of it.
57:08 Q: ...the immensity of it, yes, sir.
57:11 BK: What I do not understand, sir, is how does the programming...
57:15 K: Oh, no... Programming comes in the sense that...Sir, the computer is programmed. It will believe in God, it will believe in the Vedas, it will believe in this, that,the other thing. It will say there is God, it will say there is no God, it will say anything that has been told to it. That is the programming. My brain has also been programmed that way: I'm a Hindu, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a Christian, I believe in God, I don't believe, you follow?
57:42 BK: Yes.
57:43 K: So, let's leave that for the moment. We are saying, is that correct that there is no other, and therefore there is no relationship with the other.
58:00 AP: Sir, I question this.
58:01 K: Wait, sir, just a minute, let me finish, you'll question as much as you like. I'm just examining it, please, I may be wrong-you follow? I don't think I am wrong. I am going to stick to this. Prove to me that I'm wrong, then I'll change. My brain-the brain, which is the common brain of humanity-right? -it's not my brain, it's the common brain of humanity, the common brain which has existed for five, ten million years, has, through experience, knowledge, etc. etc., that brain has established for itself an image about the world and the image about my wife. Right? The wife is only a means of my pleasure, my loneliness, my, etc., she doesn't exist as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned, she exists as an image in me which thought has created. Therefore there is no relationship. If I admit that-not admit it- but actually see it and change the whole movement, then perhaps we'll know what love is. Then I have a relationship. No, then relationship is totally different.
59:45 AP: Sir, I question this position...
59:48 K: Ah, no, no, it's not a position.
59:50 AP: No, sir, this statement.
59:52 K: Ah, ah, ah...
59:55 AP: No, sir, you have stated something as though it is a description of a fact.
1:00:06 K: It's a description to communicate a fact to me.
1:00:10 AP: That's right. Now, I say...
1:00:12 K: Ah, no, wait. Question the fact, not the description.
1:00:17 AP: No, I am questioning the fact. I say the fact is that the world is full of so many people, they are divided into nationalities, they have divided themselves into various things. I cannot permit an over-simplification of a situation in which the problem itself is reduced to what is happening within me, because I say something is happening outside, something is happening within me, and there is an interaction, and that is the problem.
1:00:59 K: You are saying, the world, that is, not the nature, not the beauty of the earth and all that...
1:01:07 AP: No, man.
1:01:08 K: Man. You are saying, as far as I understand, that there is interaction between the psychological world and my world -right? -this is what you're implying. I say there is only one world, my psychological world.
1:01:29 AP: Sir, your psychological world...
1:01:31 K: It's not over-simplification, on the contrary.
1:01:36 Q: If I may say, you said that my relationship with my wife is my idea or whatever. But how does that image come? For the coming of the image there should be that individual, there is a point of triggering of the image.
1:01:54 K: Ah, ah, no, sir. Look, sir...
1:01:56 Q: I'm sorry, there's a point of triggering that image. You see wife out there, I have created an image of her. For the creation of the image she has to be there as an object.
1:02:08 K: No.
1:02:09 Q: But something has to trigger that.
1:02:11 K: Sir, look, my wife, I have married her, she is there. I have a sexual relationship with her. That sexual relationship is recorded.
1:02:25 Q: Yes, sir.
1:02:27 K: Recorded, it is a sensory reaction, sensual reaction, recorded. So I have created-that becomes the centre of my senses. I am right in this.
1:02:45 Q: If I may, sir, before I meet my wife...
1:02:49 K: There is the-sir, sir, sir, follow it up-from the animal, the procreation instinct is there, that is the biological instinct.
1:03:03 Q: Yes, sir, before the recording takes place, there is a meeting- I am coming to that point-there is a meeting of an unknown individual...
1:03:12 K: Ah, a woman.
1:03:14 Q: A woman, yes, woman.
1:03:15 K: Don't call it unknown individual.
1:03:18 Q: Woman, and...
1:03:22 K: With a name and a form. Carry on.
1:03:24 Q: And before this process, whatever the process, is set in motion, there has to be a physical object.
1:03:34 K: There is, the woman is there.
1:03:36 Q: And that's... what's that?
1:03:39 K: What? I don't follow.
1:03:43 Q: My point is, sir, you have now taken away the object.
1:03:47 K: I have not.
1:03:48 PJ: No, he has not taken away...
1:03:49 Q: Before the process is set in...
1:03:50 K: Sir, look, sir, there is that woman-let's face simple facts, sir- there is that woman and man, the woman, the man is attracted sexually, sensorily.
1:04:09 Q: Yes, sir, this precisely implies, if you can go into it very scientifically, attraction implies two things...
1:04:16 K: What?
1:04:18 Q: Attraction implies an object.
1:04:20 K: I said, sir, there is a woman and there is a man.
1:04:23 PJ: If I may say so, I don't think Krishnaji...
1:04:26 Q: I am not questioning, sir...
1:04:27 PJ: No, but I don't think that there is a... I don't think the question that six human beings exist is being questioned
1:04:37 Q: No, but that's the point of discussion because it says the whole thing is a process of...
1:04:42 Q: No, no, that is not being questioned.
1:04:44 PJ: See, it's not that the six human beings are being -saying that there are no six human beings, but the degeneration is not the fact of six human beings, the degeneration is what is taking place...
1:04:58 K: Taking place here.
1:05:00 KV: My idea of what you are...
1:05:02 SP: The process of recording and responding from that recording.
1:05:06 AP: To which I said that this is an oversimplification because there is an interaction between individuals...
1:05:15 K: Between two human-woman and man.
1:05:18 AP: No, between woman and man, between Russians and Americans...
1:05:21 K: Stick to for the moment, woman and man.
1:05:25 AP: All right, sir. Sir, the trouble is that the moment you reduce it to two individuals, instead of to a group of individuals...
1:05:35 K: I am going to... later on, I can... the whole world is... I can come to that, but begin with that, sir.
1:05:45 AP: Sir, I feel that the moment you use the word interaction...
1:05:52 K: I am not using the word, you are using the word.
1:05:58 Q: Yes, yes...
1:06:00 PJ: Achyutji, I would like to ask you one thing. Anyone who has observed the mind in operation sees the validity of what he says. I am not going beyond that, I am saying the validity of this, that you may be physically a human being, but you in terms of me exist as an image in my mind, and my relationship is to that image in my mind, in my brain.
1:06:38 AP: My point is...
1:06:39 K: Therefore there is no interaction. Therefore there is no 'you' I interact with.
1:06:45 AP: You see, that is where... I have a difficulty at the starting point. I say that unless you accept the existence of the other individual as valid an entity as yourself, there is no relationship.
1:07:02 K: I said that.
1:07:04 KV: It's not what he is questioning.
1:07:05 K: Yes, you explain it, madame. Fight him, go on, madame.
1:07:08 AP: Please do, please do, because what I say is, that if you were to say that me, my image, my reaction to that image, the moment you do this, you are by implication devaluing or negating what arises as a challenge from the other, because what arises as a challenge from the other is as great a reality as my own urges or responses. My urges and responses are no more valid than that of the other person.
1:07:54 Q: I suppose, sir, that is a very valid point because you are taking away the object which sets something in motion, which is a reality.
1:08:04 GN: Achyutji, I think there is a difference...
1:08:10 AP: Any of you can answer. She can also answer.
1:08:13 GN: Now, the main thing is, if I understand it right, the brain creates its own image and is related to that image, and that makes for a great deal of difficulty and prevents real relationship. That is the point. In fact, when the brain is related to its own image, all the problems are caused and there is no interaction. And if there has to be an interaction-am I right?...
1:08:46 K: Yes, sir.
1:08:48 GN: ...right kind of relationship, unless this ceases, the other is interpreted according to my convenience and comfort and...
1:08:55 K: Of course, it's so simple, what...
1:08:57 AP: But the moment you use the word programming...
1:09:00 K: Ah, I've moved away from that.
1:09:03 AP: You have moved away from it, sir, but what happens to you, because you talked of the brain. No, I say, it is the movement arising with the image sui generis in the brain or is it a response to a challenge from outside? I say it's a response to a challenge from outside.
1:09:24 K: Yes.
1:09:25 PJ: Achyutji, what are you saying? The response is in the brain. How can it be...?
1:09:33 K: Sir, sir, may I just... little...? The centre of the brain is all the reactions; sensory reactions. I see a woman...
1:09:49 AP: Can be anybody.
1:09:50 K: No, no, no. I see a woman, all the sensory responses awaken. Then the brain creates the image - the woman and the man sleeping and all the sex, all that business.
1:10:04 AP: Food also.
1:10:08 K: Food, food, all right. Oh, for God's sake.
1:10:14 AP: More important.
1:10:15 K: I hope not south Indian food or north Indian food or anything else. Let's get on with it, sir. Where am I? The sensory responses is stored in the brain. The brain then reacts as thought, through the senses, memory and all the rest of it, then this sensation meets a woman and all the responses, biological responses take place. Then the image is created. The image then becomes all-important, not the woman. The woman may be necessary for my pleasure, for my etc. etc. etc., but there is no relationship with her except physically. That's simple enough.
1:11:13 PJ: Then the question...
1:11:14 AP: There is a certain fear lurking in my mind, which I must express that is this a process of refined self-centredness?
1:11:30 K: It is, I am saying that.
1:11:34 KV: That is logical.
1:11:35 AP: But if it is a process of refined self-centredness it immediately raises before me the nightmare of the Muslims who have denied existence to the woman altogether, it is a man's prerogative.
1:11:50 K: No, no, no,... come off it, no Muslim can do that, he is a cuckoo if he does that. The woman must be kept in the background but I have the image of it. What are we talking about!
1:12:04 BK: Can we take one more step? Can there be a mental relationship?
1:12:10 K: What do you mean, mental?
1:12:11 BK: Image. Images can be refined, modified, manipulated, as time moves, so there can..
1:12:21 K: The brain is doing that all the time. We are moving away from...
1:12:25 PJ: No, but I think that if we can keep to the central point, the real question then arises, and I would like to ask Krishnaji: what is the action or what is the challenge or what is that which triggers the ending of this image-making machinery so that direct contact is possible?
1:12:51 SR: Yes.
1:12:53 K: What is that?
1:12:54 AP: I'll... I'll go with you the whole way.
1:12:56 K: Wait, wait, let me understand it.
1:12:58 PJ: I say, instead of moving, I say the central fact being so, and I think this is pretty obvious that it is so, what is the trap we are caught in is, we say it is so, but we continue in the same...
1:13:15 K: That is the real question.
1:13:17 PJ: Therefore...
1:13:18 K: Why is the brain so mechanically functioning this way?
1:13:23 PJ: No, then I ask you, what is the action, what is the challenge, what is
1:13:32 K: Yes, yes...?
1:13:33 PJ: ...that which will end this...
1:13:35 K: Break it.
1:13:37 PJ: ...so that there is direct contact?
1:13:39 K: That's all.
1:13:40 RB: Direct contact with what?
1:13:42 PJ: Direct contact with 'what is'.
1:13:44 K: Wait, let's get the question clear. The brain has been accustomed to this sensory, imaginary movement- imagery movement, not imagination movement-imagery movement. Now Pupulji asks, what will break this chain. That's the question-right, sir?
1:14:11 PJ: This is the basic question.
1:14:13 K: All right, that's very simple, I'll answer it now. Go on, discuss it a little bit.
1:14:21 PJ: Because this is...
1:14:25 K: What do you say, sir?
1:14:31 JU: (Hindi for 1 minute).
1:15:36 PJ: You see what he is saying, sir. He says, if we accept this as so...
1:15:41 K: Ah, I don't accept it, I don't accept it.
1:15:43 PJ: Please see this. The implications are that everything that arises, arises out of ourselves, out of the self...
1:15:55 K: That's all.
1:15:57 PJ: Out of the self. Nothing arises out of the outer challenge.
1:16:04 K: I said that. There is no outer and inner, there is only the brain responding to certain reactions, which is logical.
1:16:17 PJ: Did you hear? There is no outer and inner.
1:16:21 SP: There is only the brain.
1:16:24 JU: (Hindi for 1 minute).
1:17:27 PJ: (Hindi).
1:17:29 JU and Other: (Hindi).
1:17:37 PJ: In my mind, the two poles are fixed.
1:17:46 JU, PK & KP: (Hindi for 2mins plus):
1:19:59 PJ: If I may say so, the question he poses is: what are you to us? You have stated this.
1:20:10 K: What?
1:20:12 PJ: You have made a statement, I listen. I listen. What you have said is not part of that movement of my brain.
1:20:24 K: What?
1:20:25 PJ: That there is no outer challenge...
1:20:31 K: No...
1:20:32 PJ: ...that the image is born out of the image-making machinery of the brain itself; that the self projects its images of the other, and then all that which you have said, is not part of my brain.
1:20:51 K: Why? PJ It's not. It's something new to me.
1:20:55 K: No, no, no...!
1:20:57 BK: Sir, he says that he's programmed differently...
1:20:59 K: Ah, ah, ah. No, no, no. What are we talking about.
1:21:09 PJ: Sir, the question is, what is your relationship to me or to Jagannath Upadhyayaji or to X? Are you not a challenge to me, and therefore is it not something...?
1:21:28 K: Now, what do we mean by you?
1:21:32 PJ: Krishnaji. Is Krishnaji's statement or what he has been saying.. which I'm listening to, not a challenge to this very brain itself?
1:21:44 K: It is.
1:21:45 PJ: If it is so...
1:21:47 K: Wait, I know what you're going to say, yes.
1:21:49 PJ: If it is so, then there is a movement which is other than the movement of the brain.
1:21:56 K: Wait, wait. K makes a statement. It's a challenge to you only when you can respond to it, otherwise it's not a challenge. Right?
1:22:22 PJ: I don't get that.
1:22:24 AP: That is certain. You see, somebody walking on the road makes no impression on me, there is no record, therefore is no response.
1:22:32 PJ: I am listening to him.
1:22:33 AP: No, listen, there is a possibility of something happening and my not responding in any way. There is another, that he says something and immediately it evokes...
1:22:49 K: A reaction.
1:22:50 AP: ...a reaction.
1:22:51 K: Now, I want to challenge you all. Right? That's my life. I want to challenge you. How do you respond to the challenge? Either as a Buddhist, as a Christian, as a Hindu, Muslim or as a politician, as a blah, blah, blah. So, how do you respond to a challenge? Either you respond at the same intensity as the challenge or you don't respond at all. Hai capito? I was speaking Italian. You pose a challenge to me. I either understand the challenge, respond to it as intensely as your challenge, or it doesn't affect me at all. To meet a challenge you and I must face each other-right?- not bodily, but face each other.
1:24:10 PJ: You see, then he goes further and says: If you are a challenge, then why are you denying that there can be a challenge from the outer?
1:24:25 K: Ah, entirely different.
1:24:29 PJ: This is the question. You say...
1:24:33 K: I've got it, I've got it, I've got it.
1:24:39 JU: ( Translated) Can you make this clear with the help of an example?
1:24:51 K: The outside challenge is the challenge which thought has created. I don't know if I make that clear.
1:25:03 SP: Yes, sir.
1:25:05 K: Right? Achyutji? You're not sure.
1:25:08 AP: Not sure.
1:25:10 K: Let's begin again. The communist challenges the believer. The communist is a believer, and therefore he is challenging another belief, so it becomes a protection, a reaction against another belief. That's not a challenge.
1:25:40 AP: That's not a challenge.
1:25:41 K: No, that's not a challenge.
1:25:43 AP: I agree, there's no difficulty in agreeing to this.
1:25:45 K: Now, this man has no belief, no-all that.
1:25:52 AP: No stance.
1:25:54 K: And from that point he challenges, which is entirely different from the challenge from the outside, from the communist. I don't know if I made that clear.
1:26:07 PJ: What is this challenge of what you call.. which is the challenge of the no-centre?
1:26:13 K: That is the difference.
1:26:14 PJ: The challenge of the no-centre.
1:26:16 K: If you challenge me, because you are challenging my reputation, my blah, blah, blah, then I react to it because I am protecting the image which I have about myself, and you are challenging out of your image about you, etc. It's a challenge between two images thought has created. Right? But if you challenge me, which is the challenge of absoluteness vous avez compris? I mean, you understand? -it's entirely different. If Mr Upadhyaya challenges me, and I am a Buddhist or a Hindu, his challenge is a process of defending, contradicting and attacking-right? and when he challenges me, if I am a Hindu, Buddhist, whatever it is, it is the same process going on. This is not a challenge! A challenge is from something totally different. It's a challenge to a politician who is absorbed in nationalism, to say rot, nationalism is the very destruction of humanity. He says, 'Buzz off'. To him it's not a challenge because he is merely living in a fortress and refuses any attack. I don't know if I've made my point clear.
1:28:15 PJ: Sir, I think we need to go back to...
1:28:19 K: Corruption.
1:28:20 PJ: No. Yes. ...we started because you know, we're getting...
1:28:25 K: I'm willing to go back to corruption.
1:28:28 KV: How do you break this chain...
1:28:32 K: I'll answer that.
1:28:34 SP: Sir, my brain responds to the image-making machinery of the other in the same way as the challenge created by a person like you. Does it respond in the same way?
1:28:50 K: Yes, yes.
1:28:51 SP: That is the difficulty also.
1:28:53 PJ: No, no, the whole point is that one can answer. If an image is formed then it is part of the same thing, but the thing which I really Krishnaji, how is it that this movement...
1:29:13 K: To end. That's what you have been saying. How is this cycle of-just a minute, let's be clear- cycle of experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action, action again coming back to knowledge: this is the circle in which you are caught-right, sir?
1:29:42 SR: Clear, sir.
1:29:44 PJ: Causation, it is really, it's really asking that how is the stream of causation...
1:29:50 K: I'm going to go into it but I want first to be clear on this matter.
1:29:57 JU: (Hindi).
1:30:11 PJ: This process goes you have taken it to action, challenge, sensation, perception, etc-action.
1:30:21 K: Learn from that action, back again knowledge.
1:30:25 PJ: No, yes. Therefore you learn from that action. Does that learning of that action return and get stored to...?
1:30:32 K: Of course, of course.
1:30:34 K: Obviously, obviously, this is what we are doing.
1:30:39 JU: (Hindi).
1:30:54 K: I understand.
1:30:56 PJ: It acts. In between many causes have flown in.
1:31:03 K: I agree, now, wait a minute, Listen, Pupulji, it's fairly clear.
1:31:09 JU: (Hindi).
1:31:19 PJ: The whole thing which comes back and is stored again...
1:31:23 K: Not 'comes back'.
1:31:25 GN: May I say something? You have been saying that the programme works this way: experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action, action further strenthening experience the whole cycle is repeated.
1:31:42 K: That's all, that's all I'm saying.
1:31:44 GN: What I'm suggesting is, whatever the flux..
1:31:48 K: Is within that.
1:31:50 GN: That is included in this curriculum.
1:31:56 K: Curriculum, you're perfectly right!
1:32:05 JU: (Hindi 48 seconds).
1:32:35 PJ: (Hindi)
1:32:36 JU: (Hindi - 45 secs)
1:33:22 PJ: You see, these are...
1:33:24 K: Wait, Pupulji...
1:33:25 SR: What I understand, the whole thinking process of Upadhyayaji is just one fixed: there is an inner and there is an outer which you have already fixed there, and you are just repeating this. So if we think it, just about this, then it is easier to understand.
1:33:55 GN: I don't know, I just want to say one or two things. You are not denying the reality of the outer world,
1:34:04 K: There it is, how can...
1:34:06 GN: Plus there is nature, the other human beings...
1:34:09 K: And war.
1:34:10 GN: ...they are things, all this is real.
1:34:12 K: And war is real.
1:34:13 GN: War, everything is real.
1:34:15 K: Nationality...
1:34:16 GN: So the other person is real. But what you are implying is that because of this image-making process and this circuitry which is repeating itself all the time, there is really no contact, but only contact with our own images.
1:34:33 K: And, yes, yes.
1:34:35 GN: And this makes for no contact, (a), and (b), it also makes a lot of mischief.
1:34:43 K: That's all.
1:34:45 PJ: Basically, don't you see what it implies is that at no point is there real freedom.
1:34:54 K: There is no freedom.
1:34:56 PJ: Because we're caught in this, there is no freedom.
1:34:59 GN: But what I'm trying to say is that this does not deny the existence of the outer world that we must see, otherwise we go through me and the society.
1:35:08 K: Ah, ah, ah...
1:35:09 KV: You can't deny.
1:35:10 K: I'm not denying...
1:35:12 GN: I want to get clarification on this.
1:35:13 K: Oh, of course, I'm not denying, we're not denying that.
1:35:15 GN: We're not denying the outer world as an illusion.
1:35:17 K: Uh? We are not denying the reality of the outer world as an illusion, we are not denying the reality of the outer world.
1:35:26 K: Not at all.
1:35:27 AP: You are not denying the reality of the outer world as things, but you are denying the reality of the outer world as persons.
1:35:35 PJ: No.
1:35:36 K: Ah, no, you have gone off to something else.
1:35:39 PJ: You are denying the reality of the images my mind has made of the outer world.
1:35:48 K: Yes, sir. Achyutji, come on, sir.
1:35:53 JU: (Hindi - 48 secs)
1:36:42 PJ: (Hindi 38 seconds)
1:37:20 K: Sir, all that I am saying is, knowledge as we exist now, psychological knowledge, is the corruption of the mind, brain. And he says, please, I understand this process, very well, which is experience and all that. How is that chain to be broken, that is the central issue. Right?
1:37:51 AP: I think that is the central issue.
1:37:53 K: Central, which is-no, which is corrupting the brain and therefore corrupting the world.
1:37:59 AP: That is right.
1:38:00 K: Corrupting the rivers, corrupting the skies, corrupting relation... it's corrupting everything-right. Now, how is this chain of whatever you call it, to be broken. Why do you ask that question?
1:38:26 BK: Sir, Achyutji's question then is...
1:38:28 K: Ah, no, I'm asking a question: Why do you want to break this chain? That's a logical question, a valid question. Why?
1:38:40 Satyendra (S): Because basically there seems to be conflict and pain. Because basically there is a feeling of conflict within oneself...
1:38:49 K: Of?
1:38:50 S: A feeling of pain.
1:38:52 K: Which is...
1:38:54 S: a feeling of pain.
1:38:55 K: Hang on, sir, this is an important question, just go into it a little bit more. Has the breaking of the chain a cause, a motive? If it has, you are back in the same chain. That's all my point. Right, sir?
1:39:20 Q: Agreed.
1:39:21 K: Ah, no, not agree, just see... I mean, to me...
1:39:24 AP: I see, sir, I say...
1:39:26 K: No, sir, on the contrary, just- if it's causing me pleasure, I say, 'Please, leave me alone.'
1:39:47 AP: No...
1:39:48 K: Now, just a minute, sir, let me finish, you'll have your turn. So I must be very clear in myself, - I can't persuade you to be clear- in myself that I have no direction or motive or hope out of this. Right? I must be absolutely clear. Are we?
1:40:15 Q: I'm not sure.
1:40:17 K: Then what are we playing at?
1:40:20 Q: Suppose there... Sorry, sir...
1:40:22 K: Ah, ha, ha, ha... Look, sir, you're a lawyer, I come to you, you want all the facts from me as your client, the truth-right?- and you say, 'What's your motive?' also. It's the same thing here.
1:40:46 Q: May I ask a question?
1:40:47 K: Sir...
1:40:49 S: Because in many ways it's central to the-it's central, and people keep asking the question : How it is that one can break, and I can see the answer also in some way that you give. But can I ask this question: is it possible, given each one of us, given the brains that we have, given the brain that I have...
1:41:14 K: Ah, ah, ah, I don't agree. No! You see, you have already started on the wrong foot.
1:41:21 S: Right, but I am conscious of myself, as it is, may I only ask a question in this way: is it basically a way of looking at things...
1:41:36 K: mm, mm, mm mm..
1:41:37 S: No, it is not.
1:41:38 K: This is a fact.
1:41:40 S: It is not, is it a matter of reason? No, no... It's not certainty. It is not a matter of logic,
1:41:51 K: It is not a matter of logic, it's not a matter of analysis...
1:41:54 S: It is not a matter of analysis.
1:41:55 K: It's not a matter of- wait a minute, sir, don't brush it off so quickly . You see...
1:42:01 S: It's not a matter of logic.
1:42:03 K: No..
1:42:06 K: It's a matter of plain observation of what's going on.
1:42:14 S: Without the image. Without the mind forming an image.
1:42:19 K: No, sir, no.
1:42:20 S: No?
1:42:22 K: The point is this: the brain is the centre of all the sensory responses. Right? The sensory responses which has created memory, the experience, thought, all that, thought, action and it's caught in that. And the brain being caught in that, which is-I won't go into it- which is partial, it's never complete-right?- and therefore it is polluting everything it does: my relationship, my-everything it does. If you admit that once, as a fact, not as a theory, not as... Right? Then how is that circle to be broken? That is the whole point, which we're all asking.
1:43:25 PJ: Sir, maybe it might throw some light if I ask you a question, and that is: practically every teaching... which has been concerned with the mediative processes, has regarded the senses as an obstruction..
1:43:50 K: Mm, yes, yes.
1:43:51 PJ: ...to the ending of, or the breaking of (inaudible)...
1:43:57 PJ: Sir, I am asking you what role, what role...
1:44:03 K: R-O-L-E?
1:44:04 PJ: R-O-L-E, do you give to the senses in freeing the mind. You see... No...
1:44:16 K: Ah, ah, ah...
1:44:17 PJ: You see, I understand, I'm maybe putting it wrongly...
1:44:21 K: Yes.
1:44:22 PJ: ...but what role do you give the senses? Full stop.
1:44:25 K: That's all, full stop.
1:44:26 RB: I think, Pupulji, you are not correct in saying that all of them have regarded the senses as obstructive because when they said senses they included the mind.
1:44:38 PJ: No, but they also regarded the senses.
1:44:41 RB: No, but they never separated the mind from the senses.
1:44:44 PJ: Maybe they did not separate. After all, all austerities, all tapas, all yogic practices were-as I have understood, I may have been wrong- were to see that that movement of the sense out towards object.. was destroyed.
1:45:10 K: No, I wouldn't-
1:45:15 K: I don't know what the ancients have said...
1:45:18 PJ: Now, what do you say?
1:45:20 KV: I think that perhaps our understanding of, at least some movements in- this is a purely historical interpretation that I... not in terms of our discussion, that at least in what is broadly called the Hindu or, I wouldn't say even Hindu but I would say ancient Indian thought the senses are not to be denied.
1:45:48 KV: That is very crucial to the whole culture and where he began, that the first thing is the sensory perception. If you go back to this image that we have spoken about several times of the Kathopanishad... that no chariots move without horses, horses are primary.
1:46:15 AP: Senses are primary.
1:46:17 KV: Senses are primary, therefore they are not to be destroyed.
1:46:21 PJ: Then what is their role?
1:46:22 KV: They are to be understood, controlled...
1:46:25 K: Ah, ah, ah...
1:46:26 SP: Not controlled but understood.
1:46:30 KV: I am sorry for that, but they are not to be destroyed, I mean, they are primary. They are like the factors, he says, of the outer reality. He is not denying the outer.
1:46:43 PJ: No, that is what I am trying to get at. I am saying: what is the role of the senses?
1:46:50 KV: Ah, that is fine, that is fine.
1:46:51 PJ: You see, maybe my interpretation of the Indian position is incorrect, I'll withdraw it, but...
1:46:58 K: I'll tell you. The senses-if thought, which creates desire- I don't know if I'm making myself clear- if the senses without the interference of thought with its image about the senses, then the senses have very little importance.
1:47:25 PJ: Senses have very little importance.
1:47:27 K: Importance. Wait a minute, let me explain a little more, go slowly, slowly, slowly. I am exploring myself. I am clear about it, but the expression, and to put it into language a little bit. The senses have their place-right? -I am not- If you put a pin, I must react; if I see a beautiful tree, I mean, it is beauty. The beauty of a tree is astonishing. If I see a woman, if I am inclined, sensory, sensual responses, I- Now, where does desire interfere with senses? That is the whole point, not whether the senses are important or unimportant-where desire begins. If one understands that, sensory... you say, yes, why such colossal importance to it, or not importance. What? Have I slipped out of it? Right? No, I haven't slipped...
1:48:57 RB: It sounds as if a little bit that you are contradicting yourself because...
1:49:03 K: Uh? You are...?
1:49:07 RB: It sounds as if you're contradicting yourself because...
1:49:11 K: No, no, I'll show it to you.
1:49:13 RB: No, sir, may I? Because you have said, not just now, but you have said that if you can observe with all your senses...
1:49:24 K: That's it.
1:49:25 RB: That's it, therefore you can't deny importance to the senses.
1:49:28 K: No, I don't... I did not deny, you have misunderstood then.
1:49:32 Q: Desires.
1:49:34 K: No, I said-careful-I said if one responds to that tree, look at it, with that sunlight on it after the rain, it is full of beauty.
1:49:45 RB: Yes.
1:49:46 K: I respond, I mean, when there is total response to that beauty, to that, there is no me, there is no thought, there is no centre from which it is responding.
1:49:57 RB: Yes.
1:49:59 Mary Zimbalist (MZ): And no desires.
1:50:00 K: That is beauty, not the painting, not the poem, not the ... The total response of all your senses to that. We can't, we don't, because thought creates the image from which desire arises. Then that desire becomes-all the rest of it.
1:50:33 K: There is no contradiction.
1:50:35 PJ: If I may ask Upadhyayaji, how would the Buddhists regard the senses? I would be very interested to know what is the place of the senses for Buddhists-or Rinpocheji.
1:50:52 K: Buddhist or a Vedantist or a Christian or... Go on, sir, go on, I was only joking, sir.
1:51:00 AP: (Hindi)
1:51:12 JU: (Hindi).
1:51:32 PJ: Without the observer there can be no observation. According to Vedanta, without the observer there can be no observation.
1:51:44 K: Ah, that's nonsense... I mean...
1:51:58 JU: (Hindi 1 min 18 secs).
1:53:16 AP: In Vedanta.
1:53:18 PJ: (To KV): You translate that.
1:53:29 K: Madame, please.
1:53:32 KV: I think it is quite clear, sir, but, in that he is making the Vedantic position in terms of the observer, the observed. There cannot be any observation unless there is the observer. This is the first proposition. The second proposition is that out of the observer and that which is observed, it produces-here he uses the word darshan,
1:54:09 AP: That which is. but Darshan as, he's using it as a definitional term here, he's not using it as emphasis, it is within the framework of Vedanta that he has used that word darshan...
1:54:23 GN: Seeing.
1:54:24 KV: and that therefore the darshan and atma (soul) then become indivisible.
1:54:32 PJ: And the Buddhist?
1:54:36 JU: (Hindi).
1:54:52 SP: There is only seeing when the seer is not.
1:54:54 K: What?
1:54:55 SP: There is seeing only when the seer is not.
1:54:57 K: Of course!
1:55:05 JU: (Hindi).
1:55:14 SP: There is no difference between seer and seeing.
1:55:17 K: The observer is the observed.
1:55:19 SP: The observer is the observed, that's right, sir.
1:55:21 K: Right, sir?
1:55:22 PJ: That's it.
1:55:25 K: Now, may I, sir? Now, just look, what is happening here. We stick to the Vedantist attitude and the Buddhist attitude. We don't move out of that field at all. Right, sir? I am not criticising him or anything. Now, let's come back. Now, this is the whole point. The brain is caught in this movement, this movement is time; this movement is the movement of thought. Right, sir? And you are asking, how is that chain which is built by thought, and thought-please see-thought being limited itself, because it's born of knowledge, and knowledge is incomplete always, never it can be complete, therefore thought is incomplete, therefore the chain created by thought is incomplete. Right, sir?
1:56:48 Q: Yes.
1:56:49 K: Just a minute, let me finish.
1:56:51 PJ: The chain created by thought is incomplete.
1:56:55 K: Of course.
1:56:56 AP: Because knowledge is incomplete.
1:56:58 KV: Because knowledge is incomplete.
1:57:00 K: Knowledge has created this chain. Put it ten different ways. Right? Then you ask the question: how is the chain to break? Now, just a minute, careful, we must go into this a little carefully. Who is asking this question?
1:57:30 KV: The prisoner is asking that question.
1:57:34 K: Ah, ha. You are that.
1:57:39 SP: Quite so.
1:57:41 K: So who is asking the question?
1:57:44 Q: The same person who thought that knowledge was incomplete.
1:57:47 K: Ah, ah, ah, you are missing the point.
1:57:49 PJ: That which is itself incomplete...
1:57:52 SP: Is asking itself.
1:57:53 Q: Yes.
1:57:54 SP: Is asking itself.
1:57:55 K: Wait, wait. Are you quite sure?
1:57:58 SP: Otherwise...
1:57:59 K: No, don't, just look at it. The brain is caught in this. Is the brain asking the question, or desire is asking the question, which says, 'I must get out of it'. Am I right? Achyutji, you look doubtful. I don't ask the question See the difference, I don't ask the question.
1:58:44 AP: That is it.
1:58:45 K: What?
1:58:46 AP: That is better, that I understand.
1:58:49 K: Ah. Wait, sir, I'm not sure we understand each other.
1:58:53 AP: Sir, when you said, is the brain asking that question, or is desire asking that question...
1:59:01 K: Which is the brain.
1:59:02 AP: Which is the brain, that's why I bogged, that's why I was bogged and I kept quiet because...
1:59:10 K: I don't ask the question.
1:59:11 AP: ...I saw that and when you said I don't ask that question but I only observe this fact.
1:59:16 K: No, I'm not saying... I'm not... you follow? You're going ahead of me.
1:59:19 PJ: Don't we ask the question? I asked the question.
1:59:22 AP: If you see...
1:59:24 K: Ah, ah... Achyutji, Achyutji, careful, be careful. 'If you see...' that's again you are externalizing-two ends. There is only this chain.
1:59:34 AP: There is this chain.
1:59:35 K: That's all.
1:59:37 AP: That's all one knows.
1:59:39 K: No! There is only that chain. Right? Don't ask the question.
1:59:46 PJ: You see...
1:59:50 K: Moment you ask the question, you are trying to find an answer, you're not looking at the chain. I don't know if I'm making clear.
1:59:59 AP: I think that is clear.
2:00:00 K: Ah, no, you are not-you are the chain. Right? You are that, you can't ask any question. I am coming to the next point, which is, what happens when you do that? When you do that, there is no movement. Right? Am I right?
2:00:38 PJ: (Hindi) (To JU): This question which is...
2:00:42 AP: He's got it.
2:00:46 K: The movement has created this. I don't know if you... And when there is no movement, that ends. There is a totally different dimension going on. So I have to begin by not asking the question, but is the chain a fact to me-fact,.. .. thing, I see it in operation in daily life. And this chain is desire, desire in the sense, sensory responses. If all the senses respond, there is no desire. Of course. But only when the sensory responses are partial, then thought comes and creates the image, from that image arises desire. Then all the-you know, all the stuff begins. So, is this a fact to me, as pain is a fact, that this is the chain the brain works in. Whatever it does it must operate in this -politically, religiously, anything-it must operate within that area.
2:02:29 BK: I have a question sir, which is... I understand very much what you have been saying and my own question is, really, how to stay more in touch with that observation.
2:02:45 PJ: How to stay more in touch with that observation.
2:02:48 K: How to...?
2:02:50 PJ: Stay in touch with that observation.
2:02:53 Q: My conditioning is so strong that...
2:02:55 K: Sir, sir, look, I have physical pain, I immediately take a pill-right? -go to a doctor and so on. The same process is operating-you follow? I wonder if I'm making... Have I made it clear, sir? The process of physical pain, doctor, pill, that same movement is taken over by the psyche. The psyche says, 'What am I to do? Give me a pill, a way out.' But physical pain I can deal with, you know, pill or doctor, but psychological pain, which is this, the brain says, 'That is it. I won't move from there. It is so.' Moment you say, 'I want to get out of it,' then the problem begins. I don't know if I'm... This is separate...
2:04:10 PJ: Sir, I think it's half past eleven.
2:04:13 AP: Half past eleven.
2:04:15 K: Half past eleven? Good, two hours. Please, sirs, I'm not a Delphic oracle. As we said, sceptical research, sceptical investigation, is the true spiritual process, right, sir? -is true religion, if you can say, not all the rest of it.