Krishnamurti - Remaining with the stream of sorrow

Krishnamurti Subtitles

MA81S2 - Remaining with the stream of sorrow
Madras (Chennai), India - 15 January 1981
Seminar 2

0:18	Krishnamurti (K): Sir, should we continue where we left off yesterday, or start totally new a subject?
0:27	Pupul Jayakar (PJ): I think Upadhyayaji has, I think, a question which has relevance to not only what we were saying yesterday but to the whole teaching as such.
0:48	K: All right...
0:49	PJ: And if he could state his question...
0:52	K: All right, sir.
0:53	PJ: ...we could discuss it because it is relevant.
1:04	Achyut Patwardhan: He can read it.
1:05	PJ: Yes, he can read it.
1:21	Jagannath Upadhyaya (JU): (In Hindi for 2 minutes).
3:25	PJ: You want me to translate what you have said?
3:28	JU: Yes.
3:30	PJ: Panditji has said, sir, that in Varanasi, you have been talking over the years and two types of people have been listening to what you have been saying The one group which has listened to you, both these streams of people who have come to listen have been serious, have been scholars and the intention has been to understand. One of these groups of people have been those who have been committed to total revolution at all levels. The other, to the status quo that is, to the whole stream of tradition as it flows into today and the status quo of that stream of tradition. He says both these types of people go away from listening to you satisfied, they feel that they have received an answer to what has been their queries. Now...
4:56	JU: (Hindi for 4 minutes 25 seconds).
9:21	PJ: He says, Krishnaji, in your teaching, you say that when all thought, all self-centred activity, the movement of the mind as the 'me' has ended, has totally, completely ended in consciousness.
9:48	K: Who says this?
9:49	PJ: You.
9:50	K: Yes.
9:51	PJ: Then you speak of a state of benediction a state which is endless joy -please let me put it-endless joy which is bliss...
10:14	Q: Beauty and love.
10:15	PJ: ...which is beauty and which is a love which has no frontiers. Now, the man listening to you, the man who is listening to you with the mind which is rooted in the status quo, listens, and.. placing his mind on what you have said regarding that eternal, he goes back to his own...
10:50	K: Tradition.
10:52	PJ: all the great teachings which have also posited a state of eternal bliss, joy, beauty, love. And then he posits, that alone is important, a transformation of society today is unnecessary, you can make slight changes here and there, but they are transient, of no importance, and therefore they can remain as they are. That neither a transformation in the self nor the transformation in society I thought that is important.
11:34	K: Yes, so what is the question?
11:36	PJ: He then goes on to say, if you were to say- which you imply in a sense... Achyut Patwardhan (AP): No, you do say it.
11:44	PJ: You say it, if you were to say that when all thought, all self-centred activity has ended, then there is a direct contact with this great river of sorrow, not the sorrow of individual man, but the river of sorrow. Being in direct contact with this river of sorrow, from this will arise a karuna, a compassion, beauty and love which will demand transformation...
12:23	K: In society.
12:25	PJ: ...in here and now.
12:26	K: Yes, quite.
12:27	PJ: And it will end this emphasis on an eternal bliss, which ultimately is an illusion.
12:41	K: Quite right.
12:43	PJ: This is...
12:54	JU: (Hindi for 1 minute 20 secs).
14:14	PJ: Panditji says that he is a person who stands for total transformation of man and society He takes a stand on that and on the human position, his is the human position and he says ...
14:32	K: I don't quite understand 'human position'.
14:34	PJ: Human position is he is concerned with man.
14:37	K: With humanity.
14:38	PJ: Humanity. He says, as he has heard you, he says neither in the teaching nor in the being of it today, is there a place in your teaching for this concept of eternal...
15:05	K: Ah, ah-bananas.
15:08	PJ: Eternal state of... no, I won't say bananas but eternal state of bliss, benediction.
15:15	K: Yes.
15:16	PJ: That it just has no place.
15:19	Radha Burnier (RB): Neither that is eternal nor is the world eternal. That idea...
15:24	K: Sir, what is the question?
15:26	AP: Sir, if I may say so, the question really arises out of the understanding between the time and the timeless. The traditionalist has taken his stand on the fact of time and therefore he is saying that whatever you are saying has to be lived in time, therefore it's a gradual process, and must lead ultimately to bliss, which is out of time or timeless, etc. What Pandit Jagannath Upadhyaya is saying is, that as far as he understands, in your view there is no room for gradualism and time to come.
16:21	K: Yes, sir.
16:22	RB: No, I think it is more than that. What, so far as I can understand, he implies is, that, that which is timeless is not the eternal, the never-ending.
16:42	K: So what is the basic...?
16:44	PJ: The question is, sir, a clarification of what your teaching is because today more and more people are hearing you, reading you and if this contradiction...
16:58	K: Which is contradiction, where?
16:59	PJ: The contradiction is the man who stands for the status quo, takes your teaching and puts it into his...
17:06	K: Naturally.
17:08	PJ: So he says that contradiction needs clarification. What does your teaching stand for?
17:17	K: Shall we take one by one?
17:19	AP: Sir, may I be permitted to say to Upadhyayaji...
17:22	K: What?
17:23	AP: May I be permitted to say to him before we start dissecting this question, that he is a little unfair to the school to which he does not belong. After all, both positions have to be stated fairly, in their own context. You can't just denigrate one, and then denounce it. So, if you have to state the Vedantist position, the Vedantist's position says that gradualism is inescapable. They are not for status quo, they are also for change.
18:02	K: I understand, sir, I understand that. Then what is the other?
18:07	AP: Whereas he says that you stand for instant change.
18:10	K: Yes. Is that the question?
18:13	AP: Radhaji, correct me if you think I am misinterpreting.
18:16	RB: The Vedantist does not accept evolution...
18:20	RB: ...so you can't put it like that.
18:24	JU: (Hindi 1 min 20 secs).
19:49	PJ: What he says is, he is a student, he is learning, and in this process of learning he sees a contradiction, and the contradiction is, when you posit, when you speak about, you may not even posit it, when you speak about a state which is beyond...
20:09	K: Cut that out.
20:10	PJ: No, he can't. He says you don't cut it out, it figures very much in every time you speak, when you posit a state which is beyond, which is bliss, which is etc..
20:23	K: Bananas! PJ ...he says that is the contradiction he sees. That is the contradiction because if...
20:33	K: That is.
20:34	PJ: ...you cannot... yes, and therefore he says the stream of sorrow and the compassion which arises with direct contact with that is the only reality...
20:48	K: That's the only...
20:49	PJ: ...in your teaching as he sees it...
20:50	K: Quite right.
20:51	PJ: ...and therefore why this contradiction?
20:54	K: I don't quite understand when you say 'contradiction'.
20:58	PJ: Because you posit 'that', 'the otherness'.
21:01	SP: The otherness.
21:02	K: Ah, ah. I don't quite see the contradiction. I would like that contradiction explained to me.
21:12	AP: Sir, what I feel is...
21:13	K: No, would you kindly explain to me what the contradiction is?
21:18	AP: What I see is that he goes with you up to the point that there is no such thing as personal sorrow...
21:27	K: I understood, sir.
21:28	AP: ...because personal sorrow posits the personal sufferer.
21:33	K: Yes, sir.
21:34	AP: So there is that the substance of human existence is sorrow.
21:39	K: Yes, I understand that.
21:40	AP: Out of this perception, there is the arising of compassion...
21:44	K: I understand.
21:45	AP: ...which becomes love, which becomes...
21:47	K: Yes, carry on, carry on.
21:51	AP: He is bogged when you say...
21:55	K: The 'other'.
21:57	AP: ...that the perception of sorrow is the birth of compassion.
22:03	K: Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah.. un momento, un momento.
22:07	PJ: No, no, no, Achyutji. He is seeing the contradiction in Krishnaji making any statement about that...
22:18	K: Ah, now I understand. Now, I got it.
22:21	PJ: Because Krishnaji making any statement of the 'other'...
22:25	K: Is useless.
22:26	PJ: ...the mind picks on that, and puts it into its terms of reference.
22:31	K: I understand, I've got it, I've got it.
22:32	AP: Sir, I want to bring out one other point, sir, that when the professor accepts the position that the substance of human existence is sorrow -not personal sorrow but the sorrow of man- again the conditioning of Marxism or fighting for injustice, of serving the poor and all that endless travail enters into the picture.
23:03	K: Yes, it does.
23:04	AP: The moment you take it out then it appears as though you are escaping from the bedrock of sorrow as we see it.
23:14	K: Sir, can we...
23:16	JU: (Hindi).
23:22	PJ: He says you don't bring in this because you will go away to another direction.
23:28	AP: This is my commentary...
23:30	K: You are quite right, sir. You are quite right. First of all, sir, I don't quite see the contradiction personally. I may be wrong, subject to correction, but one thing is very clear, that there is this enormous river of sorrow. That is so. Achyutji, I would like to...
24:03	AP: Yes, sir.
24:05	K: That is so. Can that sorrow be ended? And if it ends, what is the result on society? That is the real issue. Is that right?
24:23	AP: Ending of sorrow...
24:25	PJ: The river, stream of sorrow.
24:27	AP: The ending of the stream of sorrow...
24:30	PJ: Can it end?
24:31	AP: ...must be...
24:32	PJ: No, no, first of all, the question... Can that stream of sorrow end? And if there is an ending, what is its impact on society?
24:47	K: You see, if you are... may I continue? Sorry, continue, sir, sorry.
24:53	JU: (Hindi for 1 minute).
25:54	PJ: You see, sir, he says there is this vast stream of sorrow.
25:59	K: Agreed.
26:00	PJ: No-one can posit when this sorrow will totally end.
26:06	K: I am positing that.
26:10	AP: That's what I think.
26:12	K: I am not positing-ah, let's be clear.
26:18	PJ: No, no, you see, let me finish what he said.
26:20	K: Sorry.
26:21	PJ: There is the stream of sorrow. No one can say at what day and time, at what point that sorrow will totally end. There can be a movement for the ending of sorrow...
26:38	K: No... yes... Avanti.
26:39	PJ: A movement for the ending of sorrow but no one can posit when that sorrow of mankind can end. This is what he says. Then you said, you are positing it.
26:53	K: I am not positing. PJ Then?
26:55	K: You see, when you say posit, what do you mean by that word?
27:00	PJ: Posit means I state it as a fact.
27:08	AP: Sir, if I may say so...
27:10	K: Say anything you like, sir. (Laughter)
27:12	AP: No, sir, because, after all, when I make a statement about you, I have to be very careful, whether that statement- because I am not stating what I have to say but I am saying what I have understood you to say. We know life as inseparably built on the fabric of sorrow. Sorrow is the very fabric of our existence.
27:39	K: Yes, sir, we've said all that, move.
27:42	AP: But you have said that the ending of sorrow can be attained.
27:52	K: Yes, there is an ending to sorrow.
27:54	AP: There is an end to sorrow...
27:56	K: Yes, sir, move.
27:57	AP: Now, this statement is not a statement about the sorrow of man ending in time, at what date. It has no future, it has no past. It is a statement that this state itself can end, now, instantly.
28:16	K: I don't quite... what is all this about?
28:18	P: Sir, he says there is a contradiction in your teaching...
28:22	K: I understood.
28:23	PJ: ...by positing 'the other', you have brought...
28:27	K: I understand, you have stated all that.
28:28	PJ: Now, he is asking why this contradiction?
28:33	K: I don't think it's a contradiction.
28:34	PJ: No, that's why the discussion.
28:36	K: No, but, let's begin, shall we?
28:37	PJ: Yes.
28:39	K: May I begin, sir?
28:40	Many: Yes.
28:43	K: I think we all agree that humanity is in the stream of sorrow- humanity. And that humanity is each one of us-right?- humanity is not separate from me. I am humanity, not representative of humanity, I am humanity. My brain, my psychological structure is humanity. Therefore there is not me and the stream of sorrow. Let us be very clear on that point.
29:23	AP: Yes.
29:36	PJ: You are saying that there is no stream of sorrow independent of...
29:40	K: Of the human.
29:44	AP: It is...
29:46	K: No, let's be very clear, that we understand each other very clearly on this point. Radhaji, I am saying this...
29:53	PJ: You see Jagannath Upadhyayaji suggests that there is a stream of sorrow...
29:58	K: Aha...
30:00	PJ: ...which is independent to sorrow as it operates... in consciousness.
30:07	K: No, no, no. I want to, if I may, forgive me, I want to make this perfectly clear. The brain has evolved through time. That brain is not my brain, it's the brain of humanity, genetic, in which time is involved. I don't know if you are following this. In which the heredity principle is involved, which is time. That is part of the brain. That is, the brain is not mine, it's the brain of humanity. That's one point. Second: my consciousness is the consciousness of man. There may be frills but it is the consciousness of humanity, because they suffer, they are anxious, they are proud, vain, cruel, unkind, anxious -this is the common ground of man, which is in the consciousness of man. So there is no individual at all, for me. Right? Right? And the stream of sorrow is humanity. It is not something out there.
31:47	PJ: No, but where is that ending? Where is that ending taking place?
31:52	K: I am coming to that. So if we start on that principle, on that reality, it's not a posit, it's not a statement by somebody crazy, it is logical, it is so. Right?
32:08	Q: Sir, you said that there is violence out there, suffering out there...
32:13	K: I don't say that.
32:16	Q: But isn't it a fact that there is violence as we see out there?
32:20	K: Out there, also in here.
32:23	Q: The perception of a person beating a child is...
32:26	K: Child is...
32:27	Q: I see it, I perceive it.
32:29	K: Yes, sir.
32:30	Q: And that perception, I think, is a moment of pity or...
32:35	K: Yes, sir, yes sir. Yes?
32:37	Q: How do you say, sir, that a person beating a child, I who see that, I am also that sorrow.
32:44	K: Of course.
32:46	Q: I perceive it as...
32:48	K: Yes, sir, you are missing...
32:49	Q: ...as an entity...
32:51	K: Sir, wait a minute, sir, first, don't take immediately a detail. I consider that as a detail-forgive me, I'll come back to the point a little later, may I?
33:04	Q: Yes, sir. I was just telling you...
33:07	K: I'm not avoiding your question...
33:09	Q: But I was taking only a specific instance...
33:11	K: Yes, sir, before you take any specific incident, let's get the ground clear-right?
33:18	Q: Yes, sir.
33:19	K: Then from there we can move to specific. The ground is, there is no individual. The ground is, the individual has been programmed.
33:39	Q: We are making assumptions.
33:41	K: No, sir, I have made it all very clear, there is no assumption at all on my part. Please, sir. I said, wherever you go in the world, human beings suffer. Right?
33:59	Q: Yes, sir, that's a fact.
34:01	K: That's all. That fact is the consciousness of humanity.
34:11	Q: Aren't we moving further from the fact, sir? That there is suffering, which is a fact...
34:18	K: Which is common to all mankind.
34:20	Q: Yes, common to all mankind...
34:22	K: That's all.
34:23	Q: And I see that.
34:24	K: Wait, sir, wait. Common to all mankind...
34:27	Q: Yes.
34:28	K: Suffering, pleasure, fear, anxiety, vanity, cruelty, more, etc. etc., all that is common to man, humanity-common to you, common to the American, common to the Russian, common to the Chinese: common. Right?
34:49	Q: Yes, sir.
34:50	K: It's not assumption.
34:52	Q: It's a fact.
34:53	K: It's a fact. So, the consciousness of man is all that, the psychological-if you don't like the word consciousness, the psychological structure is all that, of man. Right?
35:12	Q: Yes, sir.
35:15	K: Where does individuality come into this?
35:21	PJ: Individuality comes in because I posit that that may be the consciousness of mankind, but I am not cruel, I am not...
35:31	K: Ah, but you are, you are only...
35:32	PJ: You see, this is where the...
35:34	K: No, wait, you may not be cruel, you may be anxious, you may be frightened, you may be vain, that's all... Sir, you see, you take one part and say, I'm not that.
35:48	RB: I'm not that at that moment, probably.
35:50	K: At that moment.
35:52	Q: You see, sir, the problem now is we are moving into generalities.
35:56	K: What?
35:57	Q: We are moving into a world of generalities.
35:59	K: No, no, I'm not moving.
36:01	Q: The moment we say the entire humanity is suffering...
36:05	K: Sir, of course it is, what are you- That's not generalisation, that's a fact.
36:12	Q: Sir, the point is that a child is being beaten, I'm watching it...
36:15	K: Ah no, don't... sir...
36:16	Q: ...and immediately I would like to do something about it. So therefore...
36:20	AP: That's an instance.
36:22	Q: Yes, which is...
36:25	PJ: But it does not also... you see, there'll be... I think we are talking at... you cannot deny the fact that this is the fact
36:39	Q: Fact of sorrow I see, I also see it as a specific thing right in front of my eyes.
36:44	PJ: Yes, so that if there is a specific...
36:46	Q: So I who perceive that sorrow...
36:48	AP: Excuse me, are you different from what you perceive? Are you not also suffering?
36:52	Q: That question comes a little later because...
36:54	AP: No, are you not a part of this suffering?
36:56	Q: I am different from that suffering...
36:57	AP: How?
36:58	Q: ...mainly because when the child is being beaten I want to do something about it.
37:02	AP: Forget the child... Just now we have said, one statement was made, that the substance of human existence is sorrow.
37:10	PJ: You can't get away from that.
37:12	AP: Now, you have said yes, that is so, you said yes, that is so.
37:14	Q: Yes, sorrow is there.
37:16	AP: You said that is so.
37:17	Q: I perceive that sorrow, therefore I call it substance.
37:19	AP: No, no, you say that is so. I am saying, are you separate from that sorrow or are you part and parcel of it?
37:25	Q: Obviously I'm separate from that sorrow because I see sorrow.
37:28	PJ: But sorrow also operates in me.
37:30	Q: At the point of perception I am a see-er of that sorrow...
37:35	K: Sir, go slowly, sir. Don't take instance. What are you trying to say?
37:39	Q: I am trying to say that there is a stream of sorrow...
37:42	K: Full stop.
37:43	Q: ...there is violence.
37:44	K: All that.
37:45	Q: I see it as something out there.
37:48	K: Wait...
37:49	PJ: Outside yourself.
37:50	Q: Outside yourself, because I perceive it.
37:52	K: Ah, wait, sir. Outside yourself, let's stick to that, which is outside me. Which is what? What are you? You are part of that stream.
38:07	Q: Precisely because I perceive that stream.
38:09	K: Ah, no, no. You see, you see what you are...
38:13	PJ: You see, the fact which separates me from that child, the state of consciousness within me which leads to that perception is also the state of consciousness which in another situation acts in a violent way, it may be...
38:37	Q: Yes, sir. Now, if I may, I mean, if I may go into it a little farther, I see a certain action going in front of me. If I may take that incidence-instance of a child being beaten...
38:50	K: Oh, for God's sake... Yes, sir, I've got it, sir. (Laughter)
38:53	Q: Yes, sir. And the perception of it will give rise to another action... The perception of the fact of a child is being beaten gives rise to another action.
39:04	K: Yes.
39:06	Q: So therefore there are two actions.
39:08	K: We are not talking about action.
39:11	PJ: But you see, the problem is arising because we see ourselves as a fragment, we see ourselves seeing that child being beaten but we don't see that same consciousness being rude to someone else, and causing pain to someone else.
39:30	Q: Are there two processes...?
39:32	K: Sir, sir, humanity is part of that child, part of the act of beating the child.
39:41	Q: Why are we moving to that...?
39:43	K: I am coming to that, sir. We are part of all this-the war, beating...
39:50	Q: That's an assumption, sir, before this fact of seeing something like a child...
39:55	K: I'm not, sir, would you kindly drop your child, drop your perception?
40:02	PJ: But, if I may say so, sir, then take the perception a little back and see who is it that sees.
40:11	Q: I don't know, this is getting into a different realm I'm afraid.
40:16	PJ: No, because obviously that is the question: who is it that perceives the child being beaten? Who?
40:21	Q: No, my point is, can't we make something really concrete and as specific as possible and start...
40:28	K: I'm making it as specific... we'll come to that, sir. Which is...
40:34	Q: Why do we have to come to that, sir? Why can't we start from that?
40:37	K: What?
40:38	Q: With observation.
40:40	K: All right, all right. You observe war.
40:44	Q: Yes, sir.
40:47	K: Right? One of the causes of war is nationalism. Come on, sir, move.
41:02	Q: You see, sir, now the trouble is, language.
41:04	K: What? No, no...
41:05	Q: Words...
41:07	K: Nationalism, which is separatism...
41:09	Q: You see, sir, you said war, and then you went on to nationalism...
41:14	K: I didn't say that.
41:16	Q: No, no, you said war is caused by nationalism, or whatever...
41:19	K: No, one of the... sir, please...
41:21	Q: One of the causes...
41:22	K: No, you can't-I said war is part of humanity, war...
41:33	Q: The question arises, sir...
41:34	K: What?
41:35	Q: ...what is war?
41:36	K: Killing another, organised killing...
41:41	Q: That's why I gave a specific instance of...
41:44	K: Sir, Iran and Iraq...
41:48	AP: Iran and Iraq.
41:51	Q: Yes.
41:52	K: That's very specific.
41:53	Q: That's very specific, sir, let us stick to that.
41:55	K: Wait, I'm sticking. There are these two people killing each other, it's a racial war, Shiites against some other 'ites, it's an economic war, right? It's a war of.. ..you know all the rest of it, I don't have to go into all that. There's a war going on. Right? There has been Second World War, there has been First World War, there has been five thousand wars during the last five thousand years, historically. That is, this war is part of humanity. Right?
42:46	Q: Yes, sir.
42:47	K: Human beings have created this war...
42:51	Q: Yes, sir.
42:53	K: ...because of national, racial, religious, economic causes have brought this-right? And we are saying .. that sorrow that's brought about through war as an instance is the cause, is the stream of sorrow of mankind. Right? That's all we are saying.
43:19	RB: Sir, I think we should go back to what...
43:22	AP: He has something to say.
43:25	K: Yes, sir, please.
43:32	JU: (Hindi for 46 seconds).
44:18	PJ: He says you have said something which is of utmost importance. That is, that there is no such thing as individual sorrow. That individual sorrow is the sorrow of mankind.
44:38	K: I've said this.
44:40	PJ: Now, he said that should be investigated...
44:44	K: Investigate it.
44:46	PJ: That should be investigated...
44:48	PJ: Because unless you understand that, not as a theory
44:53	K: Now, that's what I want...
44:55	PJ: ...but as an actuality.
45:01	JU: (Hindi for 1 minute).
46:05	PJ: I mean, I don't quite know what... but he says one sees the stream of sorrow, the stream of mankind, one sees that it has a direction, it is moving...
46:23	K: It's moving, that's all, don't say direction.
46:25	PJ: Yes. He has used the word direction, but it is moving.
46:28	K: Moving.
46:29	PJ: Moving. Now...
46:31	K: Ah, no, that which is moving has never a direction.
46:34	RB: He didn't say direction.
46:35	PJ: He used the word direction.
46:37	K: I want to make this clear.
46:38	PJ: He is withdrawing it.
46:39	K: No, no, no, it's very important that. Moment it has a direction, that direction creates time. Translate that.
47:00	PJ: The moment it has a direction, this stream, time is born.
47:07	K: Ah, ah... just... I said it, I must investigate myself. Various speakers with JU : (Hindu conversation)
47:36	PJ: You see, he says, you must listen to the whole thing.
47:38	K: I'm listening to the whole damn thing.
47:40	PJ: In the stream which is flowing, it may appear as a stream but the stream is made up of individual drops. This is what...
47:54	K: Ah, ah, I understand, ah, ah.
47:56	PJ: You see...
47:58	K: Look, Pupulji...
47:59	PJ: No, he was saying...
48:01	K: I understand, I've understood.
48:02	PJ: And that means.. when the energy of the sun falls on that stream and draws up, it draws up individual drops, not the whole stream. You see what is implied in it?
48:18	K: I understand it.
48:19	PJ: No, it's a very interesting thing. Does it mean, then, that when ending of sorrow arises, it arises in the individual drop or in the whole stream?
48:35	SP: The whole stream, that is the question.
48:37	K: What is this? What is this?
48:40	PJ: You see, he says when energy...
48:44	K: Wait, careful, don't use the word energy.
48:46	PJ: He used the word sun.
48:48	SP: Light.
48:49	PJ: When the light falls on it...
48:51	K: On what?
48:53	PJ: The sun. The sun's light falls on it...
48:54	K: On what?
48:55	PJ: On the stream of water which is flowing, which is composed of individual drops, it draws up... But just listen, sir.
49:05	K: I know, I understood, I understood it. Take a river, it has a source. The Rhine has a source, the Ganga has a source. There it starts. The source is sorrow, not drops of sorrow. Swallow that pill.
49:33	AP: Sir, will you repeat this, I didn't quite understand it.
49:38	K: Just take it slowly, I'm investigating, I withdraw anything I said. I think I'm right. Like a river, Ganga, has a source-right?- like all the great rivers of the world: Mississippi, the Rhine, the Rhone, the Volga and so on, they have a source. It's not a drop...
50:09	AP: It is not a drop.
50:11	K: ...if the water is coming from the source. Right? Does our sorrow have a source? Not individual drops that make up the stream- you follow what I'm saying? but is the source of our being sorrow?
50:39	Q: (Inaudible)
50:41	K: Un momento, sir, just let me finish. Because to me individuality doesn't exist. My body may be tall, may be dark, light, pink, whatever colour: certain inherited genetic trappings. Basically there is no such thing as an individual. If you accept that as a fact, you cannot then say the source is made up of individual drops.
51:26	BK: Sir, you said the source is the sorrow.
51:28	K: I said, may be.
51:31	BK: May be...
51:32	K: Wait, careful, sir.
51:33	BK: If we translate it in human terms, that really means that human beings are condemned...
51:40	K: Are born of sorrow.
51:41	BK: Yes, are condemned also.
51:43	K: No, no, no, no. I am not condemning it.
51:47	BK: So there is no such thing...
51:48	K: I am not condemning. I am saying that's a fact. You can't condemn a fact.
51:54	BK: But if we put value judgements to it...
51:55	K: Ah, then you are off.
51:57	BK: Yes, right. But there is no... does it also mean that there is such a thing as the original sin, because of the sorrow?
52:05	K: Ah... no, no, no, no, that's a Christian idea of original sin, and having invented that idea, you must have a saviour.
52:14	BK: Of course.
52:16	K: And you must have all the baptism, all the circus round it. But I am not admitting anything.
52:23	BK: There has to be a solution to solve...
52:24	K: Wait, sir. My God, you don't even listen, any of you.
52:28	BK: Sorry.
52:29	K: Sorry. Is this so? Is it a fact that we are not individuals? Is that a fact?
52:49	Q: How many of us here, sir, can really say that?
52:52	K: What, sir?
52:53	Q: How many of us here-speaking for myself-how many of us can... We can see the theoretical aspect.
52:59	K: Ah, I'm not-theory, to me theory is a poison.
53:02	Q: I understand that, sir, but for myself. Now, I see, I see the theoretical concept of a stream of not-self, the individual. How many of us here, when we are listening to you, we are listening with also certain of the fact that we're also conscious of ourselves, and whatever we listen, we are listening and receiving through that.
53:33	K: I understand that, sir.
53:35	Q: Is it-coming back-is it possible in a discussion like this to get, for us, for myself, to get closer to some sort of understanding of the self...
53:54	K: Now, just a minute, sir. Are you saying this: when we hear, we make an abstraction of it, that becomes a theory, that becomes the idea to be pursued and so on. But without making an abstraction of it, can you listen? You've understood? You're a lawyer, I come to you. I say please listen to me, I'll tell you the whole truth that I committed murder, that I was this, I was that, and you listen to me. Right? You don't make a theory of it. Right, sir? Right? Now, in the same way, can you listen to the fact, to something without an abstraction? Apparently that seems to be the most difficult thing. Can we go on?
55:11	PJ: No, sir, I want to ask you a question in this. There is the stream of sorrow. You say...
55:20	K: Why do we accept that even?
55:22	PJ: No, but I am questioning it, I'm not accepting, I've not come to the state when I accept it. So let us say...
55:30	K: May I say something? I want to start with a clean slate. I am not a Vedantist, Buddhist, Hindu, Tibetan, this, that, I am not. I wipe out all that, and I say I watch, I observe what is happening around me, I observe what is happening inside me. Just a minute. I observe that the 'me' is that.
56:00	PJ: I observe what, sir? I observe...
56:02	K: Wait, wait, wait. I observe war is going on. I take that as an instance-right?- I observe how that war is being fought, why it is being fought, I observe that, read about it, know, investigate, think and look at it. Now, am I a Hindu against the Muslim? If I am, I am the result... I'll produce war. I'm going step by step. So 'I' am the result of time. Right?
56:47	PJ: Sir, your leaps are...
56:49	K: Ah, I'm making it very simple. Wait, I'm not... I'm making it very simple. I, am the result of thought, of experience, knowledge stored up in memory. That is, I am the result of thousands of generations.
57:10	PJ: Yes, that I see.
57:11	K: Now, that's a fact. Right? I have discovered that as a fact, not as a theory. Right? I have discovered that.
57:23	PJ: Yes, but...
57:24	K: Wait a minute, move, wait, wait.
57:27	S: May I interrupt you, sir, at that moment, I'm sorry...
57:29	K: What?
57:30	S: May I interrupt you, sir, at that moment?
57:31	K: Yes, sir.
57:32	S: When I say that I, as a fact, that I know that I have come through the whole mankind...
57:40	K: Of course, sir, that's so simple.
57:41	S: ...and so on. I am seeing that, and when I ask who is seeing, it is I...
57:46	K: Ah, wait, I am coming to that, I'm coming to that.
57:49	S: And I'm seeing it through my parents...
57:50	K: Am I seeing it as an idea or a fact which is happening in me, in this brain cell? You understand what I'm...? To me an abstraction is a poison.
58:15	S: I see that, sir.
58:19	K: Therefore I am not moving in that direction at all. I am only concerned with what is happening round me and in me. Right? In me is what is happening out there. I am that-the worries, the anxieties, the misery, the confusion, the uncertainty, the desire for security, the psychological world which thought has built, is mankind. My God, this is so simple.
59:00	PJ: Please, sir If it were so simple, we'd be floating in the air. Sir, how is it important? The importance is the movement of sorrow as it arises in me, the movement of violence as it arises in me.
59:24	K: Yes, all right, in you.
59:26	PJ: How is it important? I'd really like to ask that question, how is it important whether that movement is part...
59:35	K: Of that.
59:36	PJ: ...is one with the movement or is sorrow? I mean, to me that is sorrow.
59:41	K: Ah, sorrow.
59:42	PJ: I know nothing about the movement.
59:44	K: I quite agree. So, you are concerned with sorrow. I am concerned, my brother dies, I am shedding tears. Right? Wait a minute. And I watch my neighbour whose husband has gone- tears, loneliness, despair, misery, which I am going through. So I recognize a common thread between that and me.
1:00:14	P: How is that important?
1:00:15	K: Wait, I'm coming to that. It is important because when I see it's a common factor, there is immense strength.
1:00:30	PJ: Immense strength?
1:00:31	K: Strength. Have you understood that, sir? I'm questioning-you follow? I won't move anything from theory. I say when you are concerned with your little sorrow, you are weakening -I don't know if you follow-you are losing the tremendous energy that comes from the perception of the whole of sorrow.
1:01:09	AP: (Hindi)
1:01:35	PJ: I just thought of something, I must ask him. Achyutji is saying...
1:01:38	K: Ah, you see, no, ah, let me finish. This sorrow of the individual is a fragmentary sorrow. Therefore that which is fragmented has not the tremendous energy of the whole.
1:02:02	PJ: Now, I'll ask you a question...
1:02:04	K: You... first see that, and then ask the question.
1:02:08	PJ: You see, sir, I must ask you this question in order to see that. To see...
1:02:17	K: Wait, wait, let him translate, sir You see, that which is fragment -a fragment is a fragment, whatever it does, it's still within a small radius and therefore its sorrow is weakening. This actually happens, I don't know if you've noticed it. If I am suffering because my brother is dead, I get more and more involved, with more and more tears, more and more...
1:03:02	AP: I get depleted.
1:03:05	K: Yes, use that word. I'm losing, but the fact is I am part of this enormous stream. Ah, see, sir, what it means.
1:03:20	Q: May we ask a question, sir?
1:03:21	K: Ah, no, no, no.
1:03:27	BK: Sir, if this line of thinking is complete, I'd like to go back to what you said earlier about theorising and how our brain perpetuates itself.
1:03:42	K: Abstraction.
1:03:43	BK: Yes.
1:03:44	PJ: But this is not complete. Because we have not... Have we? Have we understood it? If we have not understood it, it's not complete.
1:03:53	K: What is the point?
1:03:55	PJ: And, sir, what is it- You see, when my brother is dead and I observe my mind, I see the movement of sorrow.
1:04:14	K: Not the movement, I am in sorrow.
1:04:16	PJ: I am in sorrow.
1:04:17	K: Yes.
1:04:19	PJ: But that feeling of sorrow of mankind...
1:04:23	K: Ah, you don't know anything about it.
1:04:24	PJ: I know nothing about it.
1:04:25	K: Therefore stop there. I mean, I am not-we are not talking about the stream of sorrow. My brother dies, and I am in sorrow-right?- tears, loneliness, despair, a sense of colossal loss. Right? And I see this happening to my neighbour on the left and right. Right? Right? So I see this happening right through the world. Right? It's not only my neighbour left and right but the neighbour of a thousand miles-right? They are going through the same agony, not at the moment I go through, but they go through the same agony as I have been through. Right? Right? So I discover something, which is, it is not only me that suffers, mankind suffers. Right? What is the difficulty in this?
1:05:57	K: Ah, it is much more poignant to me than the little man suffering in a little corner.
1:06:06	PJ: That poignancy does not arise. I do not weep at the world's sorrow.
1:06:13	K: No, because-follow this, see why don't I look at the world- because I am so concerned with myself, which I have been concerned all my life: I go to the office, concerned with myself; I go to the temple, myself; my relationship with another is myself; so I have reduced all this life to a little corner which I call myself. And my neighbour does the same, he does the same, everybody is doing the same. This is a fact. Right, sir?
1:06:57	PJ: Yes, this we see, this is possible to see.
1:07:00	K: No, this is so.
1:07:01	PJ: Yes, this is so.
1:07:03	K: So, I say, then I discover it's a stream, it's a thing that has been going on for generations.
1:07:19	JU: (Hindi for 1minute 40secs).
1:09:00	PJ: He first asks the question, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Is the particular and the stream...
1:09:13	K: Are they the same.
1:09:14	PJ: Are they one?
1:09:15	K: Yes.
1:09:17	PJ: He says...
1:09:19	K: There is no particular.
1:09:20	PJ: No, I'm just saying this. The particular is manifest...
1:09:29	K: What?
1:09:30	PJ: The particular is experienceable, let me put it.
1:09:34	K: Ah ha, ah ha - Ah!
1:09:36	PJ: Listen, sir, particular is experienceable, the stream...
1:09:44	K: Is not.
1:09:46	PJ: Even when we say we see the stream, we see it as particulars put together.
1:09:53	K: No.
1:09:54	PJ: You understand what I am saying?
1:09:55	K: I understand, I understand, I've got it.
1:09:57	PJ: Am I correct...?
1:09:59	JU: (Hindi for 37 seconds).
1:10:36	PJ: He says as long as the self is, the particular will have to be.
1:10:43	K: Just a minute, Pupul, I've understood all this, if you give me a little. I understand that, sir. Now, wait a minute, sir. I keep to this fact-my brother dies, I shed tears, I am desperate-you understand, sir? This is a fact, it's not a theory. And I see my neighbour going through the same thing as I am-right? and the neighbour right and left and forward, back, thousand miles, neighbours, they go through the same thing. So what happens? Either I'm so caught in my little sorrow or I perceive this enormous sorrow of man. Right? Right? Wait...
1:11:44	JU: (Hindi).
1:11:47	PJ: He says even when you see this in thousand miles, you see them as separate.
1:11:52	K: No.
1:11:53	PJ: No, then I ask you, what is the factor, what is the instrument, what is the intelligence...
1:12:02	K: That's just it, I'm coming to that, for God's sake, give me a chance! I'm coming to that. Right, sir? See what has happened to me.
1:12:14	Q: If I may ask a question...
1:12:15	K: Sir, just a minute, sir. See what's happened to my mind, to my brain. My brain has been concerned with the loss of its own brother. Right? Right, sir? And the brain, eye-visual eye-hearing, sees this enormous suffering in my neighbour thousand miles. Right? How does it see it? That's the point you are coming to. You understand, sir? How does it see the fact that my neighbour is me, who is going through hell-right? and neighbours all over the world are my neighbours. This is not a theory. I recognize it, I see it. I walk down the street, there is a man crying because he has lost his son-right? I see the fact, not a theory.
1:13:32	JU: (Hindi interrupted after 14 secs).
1:13:47	RB: No, but we have to come to this question: how do we see?
1:13:49	K: I'm coming to that.
1:13:50	RB: He is going on to something else.
1:13:55	PJ: He's talking of seeing.
1:13:57	JU: (Hindi for 1min 53 seconds)
1:15:51	PJ:He says when Krishnaji talks of the thousand miles, of seeing people dying and the sense of sorrow which he sees as sorrow, not individual sorrow.
1:16:09	K: Yes, and I cry much more for that than for this.
1:16:12	PJ: Yes, yes...
1:16:13	K: Ah, get that!
1:16:14	PJ: Sir, listen, sir. He says he can do it because he has negated the self totally, all time totally, there is no movement which is fragmentary in him. When I am in that.. when my brother dies, I cannot see with the same eyes.
1:16:39	K: No, of course not.
1:16:40	PJ: I am standing on the bank of the river.. ..no he is standing on the bank of the river and watching, I am floating in the river.
1:16:51	K: Yes. What happens, Pupul? Just go through the actuality of it. My brother dies, it's a shock. It takes me a week or two, whatever the shock, to get over it. When the shock is over, I am observing. I see this thing going on round me. This is a fact. This is not K, somebody is free from self and all that. This is happening!
1:17:22	PJ: No, but you still have to tell me with what eyes do I see it.
1:17:26	K: I'm coming... we're all going back always to the point, you're not giving...
1:17:33	Mary Zimbalist (MZ): May I say just briefly, to what Pupul said. The very fact of being in this stream of intense sorrow is so intense that it is not that particular, the very pain of sorrow is so strong that one is part of the universality, not the individual loss or death or whatever it is that's causing sorrow. One can perceive without being, in some extraordinary way transformed, one can at that moment, I suggest strongly, see the enormity of it, and be part of that enormity and not just enclosed in one's own sorrow.
1:18:23	K: Mariaji, they won't accept all this, let's be simple and factual. Am I so enclosed that I don't see anything except me and something outside of me? That is the first to be established-right?- In discussing this, am I, my thoughts, my feelings, my accidents, seeing the baby being hit and cruel, all the rest of it, am I so enclosed that I refuse to see what is happening outside me? No, this obviously not.
1:19:13	PJ: Obviously I see. (.. background conversation inaudible)
1:19:20	RB: Krishnaji is continuing.
1:19:25	K: So, I want to go back to this point: sorrow, when there is this sorrow of my brother dying-there is only sorrow. Right? I don't say it's a stream of sorrow, there is this thing burning in me.
1:19:46	PJ: Yes, that we all know.
1:19:50	K: And I see this thing happening left and right, we all know that. Right? Let's move from there. And it's happening to all human beings. I can see that too, theoretically...
1:20:05	PJ: Theoretically...
1:20:06	K: Wait, wait. Why can't I see it as a fact, as me suffering and therefore the world suffering, why don't we see it? That's the point we are coming to, isn't it? No?
1:20:24	Q: Yes, sir.
1:20:29	PJ: But this is a... The sorrow of another, that that passion, that intensity which is born in me when there is sorrow arising in me, does not arise when I see the sorrow of another.
1:20:56	K: All right, when you are suffering, you've closed your ears and eyes to everything else. Right? Right?
1:21:11	PJ: Even if you don't close your ears and eyes...
1:21:14	K: Wait wait, you do actually. When my brother dies, everything is shut. Right?
1:21:22	PJ: Yes, I understand.
1:21:25	K: And this is the whole point, Pupul. If the mind remains, if the brain says yes, I won't move from that, I won't seek comfort: no movement, right? Saying I'm an individual, I'm suffering, I'm this, my brother -just hold it. Proceed. We don't do that. We talk about my son being... This has actually happened to K. His brother died, and everybody round him said various things, he suddenly did it -held that. He didn't seek comfort, he didn't... all the rest of that nonsense. So what happens to a mind like that? That's all my point.
1:22:38	JU: Krishnaji...
1:22:39	K: Ah, has he understood?
1:22:43	AP: Yes, sir.
1:22:44	PJ: (Hindi).
1:23:15	K: Ah, you see, when that takes place, you have rejected everything. Oh, come on...!
1:23:23	PJ: Just a minute.
1:23:31	JU: (2 and a half minute exchange in Hindi between JU and PJ)
1:26:00	K: That's the whole point, Pupul. If you remain with sorrow, you have denied everything, that's the beauty of it, you don't see it.
1:26:11	PJ: He is saying if you remain with sorrow you have denied everything.
1:26:13	JU: (Hindi).
1:26:31	RB: He says that is so but only for Krishnaji.
1:26:33	K: Oh, no...
1:26:34	JU: (Hindi).
1:26:38	K: Swamiji, panditji...paditji
1:26:42	JU: (Hindi).
1:26:53	K: Panditji, hell to Krishnaji. Throw him away. This is a fact.
1:27:08	AP: Truth is not person-specific.
1:27:13	K: We never remain with anything completely. If the brain remains completely with fear, everything is gone. But we don't, we are always searching, moving, asking, questioning.
1:27:42	Q: Sir, I'd like to ask the same question, then, as yesterday,
1:27:45	K: What, sir?
1:27:46	Q: The same question that I asked yesterday might be appropriate, at that point which is, how to approach, staying closer to that...
1:27:54	K: I said don't escape-Sir, please. My brother dies. I shed tears, do all kinds of things, and suddenly realize there is no answer in anything else-right?- reincarnation, going to the gods, doing this, doing that, nothing remains except that one thing. Right, sir? Have you done it?
1:28:30	Q: Yes.
1:28:32	K: What happens then to the brain that has been clattering, making noise about your sorrow, chasing its own tail, and when that chasing stops, what happens?
1:28:51	Q: There is always some other interference.
1:28:56	K: No, there is no-I said, sir, you're all- there is no interference when you observe something totally, which is, to observe totally is to not allow thought to cheat what is being perceived totally. It's simple enough.
1:29:17	JU: (Hindi).
1:29:40	K: What is he saying? Would you translate?
1:29:46	RB: I don't quite understand the question.
1:29:49	JU: (Hindi 2 minutes 40 seconds).
1:32:33	PJ: He is going back to his original question, sir, which was, you have come to this point of sorrow. In the talks which you have had, you then say that when this is understood totally...
1:32:55	K: When? What?
1:32:56	RB: Sorrow or whatever.
1:32:58	PJ: When sorrow is understood totally.
1:33:00	K: No, there is no understanding sorrow.
1:33:03	RB: When you see it totally.
1:33:05	K: Ah, ah, ah. The bell doesn't ring.
1:33:11	PJ: When there is an ending of all man's duality.
1:33:16	K: No, wait a minute. This is all theory.
1:33:21	PJ: No, but whatever it is, just let me say what he says, then you can say... He says when all duality has ended, when you say, not he...
1:33:33	K: I don't know anything about all that.
1:33:35	PJ: He doesn't say, he said you have said in other talks, when all has ended...
1:33:43	K: When sorrow has ended-I will tell you what takes place, when sorrow has completely ended, then there is compassion.
1:33:58	PJ: No, that he is not... you see, you must go back to his original question. I don't want to... but he goes back to his original... I think he may discuss it tomorrow.
1:34:11	AP: Sir, I have got the point.
1:34:13	K: What, sir?
1:34:13	AP: I have got his point.
1:34:15	K: What is it, would you tell me?
1:34:16	AP: Yes, sir, I will tell you. I'll tell you in one minute.
1:34:23	K: Ah, take an hour.
1:34:26	AP: Sir, he says that the perception that human existence is sorrow gives rise to compassion.
1:34:44	K: Ah, ah...
1:34:45	AP: Just wait. I am only trying to-into quotation marks. Please give me... I am translating what he is saying. I am saying no, the perception of the fact that human existence is sorrow is the ending of sorrow and without the ending of sorrow there is no compassion. That is your position, as I understand it.
1:35:13	K: My position is, I will make it very clear-not position, what to me...
1:35:20	AP: No, but I used the word position to say I should not misrepresent him.
1:35:24	K: No stream of sorrow, mankind, mankind.
1:35:27	AP: The perception of the stream is not compassion, the ending of sorrow is the birth of compassion.
1:35:33	K: Yes, that's all.
1:35:34	AP: This is your position.
1:35:35	K: Yes.
1:35:40	JU: (Hindi)
1:35:59	AP: (Hindi)
1:36:02	Q: After sorrow bliss comes.
1:36:04	K: Ah, ah, ah. I never said, sir, forgive me, I said the ending of sorrow is the beginning of compassion, not bliss, not bananas and all the rest of it.
1:36:23	JU: (Hindi).
1:36:44	SP: He is objecting to this talking about the 'other'.
1:36:48	K: Ah, all right, I won't talk about the 'other'. Do you understand, sir? I won't talk, it's irrelevant. I agree. Right? What are you objecting?
1:37:07	PJ: You see, you must take the question as he started. He said people come to hear your talks and at the end of the talk you say, 'Then there is benediction', 'then there is a state'...
1:37:23	K: Yes, yes, yes, I've said it.
1:37:25	PJ: Now, he says that...
1:37:27	K: Caught me.
1:37:28	PJ: ...makes them go away feeling that that is the final thing...
1:37:32	K: No, no, what makes them go away is...
1:37:34	SP: What makes them go away?
1:37:36	K: ...is to them that, X, is a theory, which they have accepted from a book as a theory-right?- and say the two mix together. That's all.
1:37:50	AP: Sir, I will go one step further...
1:37:52	K: So will I.
1:37:54	AP: ...and say that the learned professor has listened to the fact that the substance of human existence is sorrow and the perception of this is compassion. This is also a theory, and he seeks corroboration of this when you say this. And that also gives him satisfaction, and I say this satisfaction and that satisfaction are on the same level, so long as we are not willing to face...
1:38:27	K:I quite agree, sir. I wasn't so rude.
1:38:33	Q: He is here, therefore...
1:38:35	K: Yes, sir.
1:38:36	AP: I just...
1:38:38	K: I understand, sir.
1:38:45	PJ: Sir, it is time.
1:38:48	K: Sir, I would like to ask something. Are we discussing this as a theory, as something to be learnt, to be studied, to be informed, or is it a fact in our life? -you follow, sir? Which is it, at what level are we discussing all this? If we are not clear on that, we will get messy. For me, I am talking at the lowest level-right, sir?- which is our corruption-right? -our degeneration, and all that, is brought about by knowledge, that's all, because we are always living in the past. Right? That's our life. Past is the knowledge, and keep going round and round in circles. I'm not accusing anybody, please. The speaker says, K says sorrow is an endless thing that man has lived with-right?- whether it is my neighbour, or your child being beaten, and so on, there is endless sorrow. Right? And can it end? Not theoretically, not-Can it end? You come along, that gentleman, or any of you come along and tell me it can end. I either treat it as a theory, or some kind of idiotic statement which has no value, or, I say show it to me, show me the way to it-you understand?- not how, show me the manner it can end. Right? That's all I am interested in. That gentleman says I'll show it to you. We never come to that point. He says to me I will show it to you. Am I willing to listen to him so completely, say Swami, tell me, show me. I am-you follow, sir?- I am willing to listen to him so completely because I want to end this thing. So he says to me, sorrow is the stream, remain with the stream. Don't be off it or on it and under it or over it, just remain with the stream without any movement, because any movement is the cause of sorrow. I don't know if you see that. Right? Right, sir? So he says to me, remain with it. Don't intellectualize, don't get emotional, don't get theoretical, don't seek comfort, just remain with the thing. And that is the most difficult. Right, sir? Therefore we play around with it. And he has been telling me that, ten years. And he also tells me if you go beyond this, there is some beauty that is out of this world. I listen to the 'out of this world'-you follow? Sir, I still insist, it's not a contradiction. Right, sir? I don't know why, if I may most respectfully say, why is it a contradiction? Sir, would you, if you found something astonishingly original, which is in no books, no Vedas, no-all that's gone, you've discovered something of an enormous nature, wouldn't you talk about it, knowing they will do exactly what they have done before, catch on to that and neglect this? Right, sir? Wouldn't you do it?
1:44:47	AP: (Hindi to JU)
1:45:07	K: What, sir?
1:45:08	AP: Merely gave a translation.
1:45:14	K: He would do it, sir, because it's part of the whole thing. It's not there and here. It's part of the-uh, sir, it's a part of the tree-right, sir? The tree is the roots, hidden, and the roots, when you look at the beauty of a root, you talk about it, it's not that you are escaping, contradicting, you say the tree is the root, the trunk, the leaf, the flower, the beauty of the whole thing. Sir, please, I'm not imposing my thinking on anybody, I'm just one of the guests here, I'm just passing by.