Krishnamurti - Ideas have divided people

Krishnamurti Subtitles

MA84DSG1.0 - Ideas have divided people
Madras (Chennai), India - 11 January 1984
Discussion with Small Group 1.0

0:19	Achyut Patwardhan: Sir, we have with us today Dr Aram and Shri Rajmohan Gandhi. Dr Aram has worked in the Coimbatore University for more than ten years and then he went to Nagaland in the North East India, where there has been a great deal of insurgency and disorder. And he worked on the peace mission for fourteen years there, and he was able to establish a dialogue with the Nagas and the rest of the Government informally through Shri Jayaprakash Narayan. He was working on behalf of Jayaprakash Narayan. And after that he is now in the Gandhigram University near Madurai, he is Vice Chancellor of that University. It is for rural welfare work.
1:19	Krishnamurti: Can you speak little louder, sir, I can’t hear you?
1:24	AP: Rural welfare work and family planning. And he has achieved in one village what we all hope to achieve on a large scale. One village has been voluntarily, by education, come to zero rate of growth of population. He was very much interested in that kind of work, and has been doing it. Mr Rajmohan Gandhi, as you know, he was...
1:51	K: Louder, sir, I can’t hear a thing.
1:53	AP: He is a very respected person in India. He used to run a paper called Himmat for ethical values in society and the paper had to close. He closed down this paper during the emergency because they could not stand it. He continues to work for... So… position in society.
2:22	K: You have to say something about me too.
2:31	AP: We thought it would be interesting because they have been working in a field of imparting to society an ethical base for regeneration – not only material regeneration, but material regeneration with a moral basis too. So we thought it would be interesting.
3:03	K: So...
3:04	AP: The issue is, that you have said that any work that we do in regard to society must create greater complexities and newer problems, unless we start at the centre. And that the starting point is compassion. They have also great faith that compassion is the source of all loving kindness and good relationship between human beings. But they say we cannot wait upon compassion, we must start to work with society, and as we start to work with society, if we are constantly aware that the ego is the factor of this cause, then social work can become the best means of achieving...
4:06	Dr Aram:... Sir, probably compassion. Sir, may I say something?
4:12	K: Sir, sir, I am not the Chairman.
4:17	DA: Sir, for many years I have been an admirer of you from a distance, and today I feel tremendously privileged to have this unique opportunity to participate in this intimate dialogue. Some of your teachings are entirely agreeable to me. For instance, each one should be a light unto oneself, the inward revolution should come first, the ego should go, the mind should be free from conditioning, and when the observer is observed, the conflict ceases. Having said this, Krishnaji, may I say also that – and I say this based upon my own experience – social action is necessary and important, social action is necessary in order to face challenges, in order to solve problems. So I feel that self-change and social change should go hand in hand. Achyutji has mentioned and last night he said it, these two processes of self-change and social change should go on simultaneously.
6:03	K: Do I answer what you pointed out?
6:08	AP: No.
6:09	Rajmohan Gandhi: I would only like to say ditto to what Dr Aram has said.
6:11	K: What, sir?
6:12	RG: Ditto – I agree with what he has said. I am in a very happy position just to be able to say that.
6:23	AP: I define his position as that the two processes are simultaneous. And I said that Krishnaji’s position as I understand it, is slightly different, therefore there is room for a very useful dialogue.
6:44	K: Sir, I would like to ask, what do you mean by social change?
6:51	DA: May I give an example? Achyutji referred to the Nagaland situation. In the fifties, the situation there was very bad. There was conflict, there was violence, there was counter violence, a lot of bloodshed, loss of life, destruction of property, hatred, and so on. This was the situation in the fifties. Then in 1964, the peace mission came on the scene. And the peace mission was able to bring about a ceasefire, the suspension of violence, first. That brought about a change in the situation. Then as Achyutji mentioned, the peace mission was able to bring about a dialogue between the contending parties, that of the Naga underground and the Government of India. And the peace mission succeeded in bringing the underground leaders face to face with the Prime Minister. The dialogue started. The dialogue was not very fruitful in the first phase. There were no results coming out of the dialogue. Nevertheless the peace mission continued to work. I think the secret of success in the Nagaland peace mission was its sustained work for peace and goodwill irrespective of the outcome. As a result over the years, may I say, there was a qualitative change in the situation. And situation moved gradually from one of un-peace to peace, one of discord to harmony. And finally it did result in a breakthrough in 1975, the famous Shillong peace accord, when the underground decided to stop fighting and they were brave enough to say farewell to arms, and they deposited all their arms to the peace mission, which was a miracle really, a dream which came true. This I would consider a major change in the social situation.
9:00	K: Go on, sir.
9:04	RG: Well, obviously we want to see an end to hunger in the world, corruption, war. And we would be very reluctant to confine ourselves only to the reformation of ourselves although we absolutely agree that that has to be the heart of any wider change. But unless we are very keen to better the world, to use a very old-fashioned expression, we may feel that even in our own endeavours to curb our egos, we may not succeed. Because when it comes to forgetting the ego or trying to restrain it, or curb it, or extinguish it, I personally have found in my personal experience that remembering other individuals is often the best way of forgetting myself, whereas if in a vacuum I’m trying to forget myself, I am all the time remembering myself, who has to be forgotten. So in the act of forgetting, I am actually remembering. Whereas, if I have in my mind’s eye or with my physical eyes I see the suffering of others, and I see many other individuals who perhaps need help, then I am better able to forget myself. And I cannot accept really, that I must not be preoccupied with the sad and painful, and ugly condition of our world.
10:40	K: I am not sure, sir, I agree with all this. Forgive me. I would just like to explore. Would you grant that the world, not just Nagaland or India, that the humanity, not of a particular nation or a group – American or Russian or Indian or Chinese – humanity is facing a great crisis.
11:24	DA: Yes.
11:32	K: And mere tinkering little bit here, little bit there, is not going to change the human consciousness.
11:41	AP: May I say, sir, that in our introductory talk, before this dialogue, it was conceded that whatever one does, with respect to any particular locality, one has to have a global mind, a global perspective, that actually what we are faced with is an unprecedented crisis in the human situation. But that is not an abstraction, one has to deal with it at the place where one is.
12:13	K: But, Achyutji, but you have to have a global mind, a global attitude or a global quality of a brain. Right? AP: Yes.
12:28	K: Have we? Or are we talking about all this theoretically.
12:36	AP: I think we have.
12:37	K: To have a global mind – sir, just a minute…
12:39	AP: I am being very particular. In this specific instance, we are having this dialogue between persons who have the inwardness to see that mere conceptual understanding or acceptance of a global perspective is totally inadequate. That wherever one actually is, one must feel oneself as a world citizen.
13:07	K: As? AP: A world citizen
13:09	K: Do we? I mean, is this a theory or actuality?
13:15	AP: No, I said that they are people who are aware of the fact that it is not enough to have a conceptual brain but actually, wherever one is, one must function as a world citizen.
13:28	K: I don’t think where one is matters.
13:34	AP: But one has to be somewhere. K: Yes, you are. But the principal activity should be… should have… should be, whether the brain which has been so conditioned, can ever be global, or always a particular individual or a particular community, particular nation, and so on. That’s my question.
14:04	DA: Krishnaji, I would agree that the inward revolution should come first. And I would also make a modification in what I said at the outset, that self-change should precede social action.
14:23	K: Beg your pardon, sir!
14:24	DA: Self-change should precede social action. This again, I make a modification. While I do believe the two processes should be simultaneous, but I also believe that the inward revolution should come first. But even to test the validity of the inward revolution, one may have to go to the social field.
14:52	K: I don’t quite...
14:53	AP: Sir, you tell him that incident which…
14:57	DA: As a matter of fact, sir, Achyutji mentioned about the Nagaland situation and we were able to achieve some results. If that was possible, speaking out of my own experience, before I went into Nagaland, where I worked for fourteen years, I did have some sort of an inward change, and armed with that only, we were able to face the situation. For instance, the requirement, the basic requirement for peace work in Nagaland was freedom from the fear of death, and very fortunately, before I went into Nagaland, I had some sort of experience, which did give me that freedom from the fear of death. So what I am trying to say is that self-change comes first, the change in the consciousness. But then it should be reflected and used in the context of a social situation. This is my submission.
16:05	K: No, answer him, sir, it is, I am not...
16:08	RG: Well, my reaction to your thought about whether we really have a global mind, is to say, speaking for myself, that very frequently I do not have a global mind. I often have a very family mind, or a personal mind or I am preoccupied with the next thing I have to do, the article I may have to write. But I say this much, that frequently, though not always – I wish it could be always – frequently though not always, I check myself when I find that I have this very narrow mind. And I personally require two things: to leave my self-centeredness, and have a bigger mind. One is a personal decision in my own mind and heart, and the other is a prayer to the Almighty that he may enable me to carry out my decision. Speaking for myself, this is my experience. And I have frequently found that when I admit to myself or to those involved that I was at that point having a narrow mind, then I get freedom. Admission, confession, acknowledgment, brings me liberty, and a decision supported by the Almighty’s grace gives me a bigger mind, at least for the time being.
17:24	K: Sir, I question whether there is a God Almighty.
17:32	AP: Sir, this is the second subject which I thought would be...
17:37	K: Sir, let us proceed step by step. Could we?
17:40	AP: No. The second subject came in our discussion with Rajmohanji. I found that prayer was a very dynamic factor in his life. That prayer was not for a personal God or anything. But there was a prayer as a source of renewal. And I felt that it would be good to discuss both the subject that Dr Aram has put and...
18:17	K: Would you mind repeating what Dr Aram has said.
18:21	AP: You see. Dr Aram…
18:23	K: I understood his point of view, which is…
18:25	AP: I don’t have to repeat, which is that if you start with an inner experience, even then, like fear of losing, fear of death through an experience, it has to be tested through social action, and it has got to be applied to social action.
18:40	K: Why do you always relate social action, and mutation in the brain cells? Why do you always correlate those two?
18:53	AP: Because in this country... K: You are all socially-minded.
18:55	AP: No, sir, in this country... K: I know I don’t bring...
18:58	AP:...teaching of Advaita coexisted with untouchability for centuries. So every earnest Indian is as it were, put on his guard never to trust any experience which does not find the reflection in behaviour. You said behaviour is righteousness.
19:21	K: Where do we start this dialogue? You are bringing so many…
19:25	AP: These are two views, sir. One is about this and the other is… K: Which is what? No, just go slow. One is there must be inward change. AP: Change.
19:33	K: I would like to understand what you mean by those words. Psychological mutation – right? – if I can use that word, in the very structure of the brain cells which have been conditioned, whether that’s possible. We talk very easily about inward revolution, psychological change, and all that. Is that physically, psychologically, possible? That’s all my first question. You understand my question, sir?
20:14	RG: Well, I think, I partly do, sir...
20:17	K: No. Either you understand it completely or – not partially.
20:22	RG: Well, I think, I do, but I am not absolutely sure that I do, sir. That is my position.
20:28	K: So, let us be clear on that point before we...
20:31	RG: Well, I personally prefer ‘personal change’ to the phrase ‘inward change’.
20:38	K: What?
20:39	RG: I personally prefer the phrase ‘personal change’ to the phrase ‘inward change’.
20:45	K: What do you mean ‘personal’?
20:47	RG: Well, let me put it in very simple words. When I see either in myself or in others before me, where there was hatred, there is love, where there was dishonesty, there is honesty, where there was malice, there is charity, I call that personal change in those people, or in myself.
21:15	K: Sir, you are introducing love and hate. Are they related to each other?
21:25	RG: I think they are the opposites of each other.
21:28	K: Then it’s not love. If they are opposite, they are not love. If you like to have a dialogue on it, let’s go into it. You see, sir, this is what I want to be clear. We use words, you and I, we use words, each one giving a different significance or meaning to it. So let us all agree, if we can, for a definite meaning of each word. Right, sir? Society is brought about by us, by every human being – right, sir? whether that society be recent or ancient. That society is put together, structured by every human being all over the world. Whatever the environment, whatever the climate, and so on, it’s produced by human beings. That society is in a chaos at the present time. That you will agree. DA: Yes, sir.
22:52	K: It is in a state of desperate confusion. In America, in Europe, I am sure in Russia and here, a threat of war, they are frightened…
23:10	DA: Nuclear weapons.
23:11	K: What? DA: Nuclear weapons.
23:13	K: Of course. That is the real danger. Now, our brain is conditioned by a so-called culture. Now, that conditioning has given us a personal attitude, a personal outlook – if I may use your word ‘personal’ – or individualistic concern. Right? And we are questioning whether the individual exists at all. And you always talk about self, forgetting oneself, prayer, love and hate. I don’t understand all these words which you are using. If love is the opposite of hate, as you pointed out, sir – I am not quibbling with you, I am not facetious, but I want to be very clear about these matters. If love is the opposite of hate, then it’s not love. Any opposite – any opposite – love, the opposite of hate. If hate is the opposite of love, they are related to each other. Therefore it’s not love.
25:11	RG: Uh…
25:12	K: Just a minute, let me finish that. So, I feel we ought to be very clear in our dialogue with each other, whether we understand the meaning of each word – I am not saying you don’t understand.
25:34	DA: The meaning of...? K: Every word...
25:36	AP: The words we use and the context in which we use.
25:39	RG: Yes. Yes.
25:41	K: This… he used the word ‘love’ and ‘hate’, ‘charity’ and ‘greed’, and so on, as opposites. I say this is just playing tennis in the same court all the time.
26:00	RG: Would you allow me, sir, to say...
26:02	K: Oh, sir, sir, I am not chairman. You can say what you like, don’t ask me.
26:05	RG: Well, if Achyutji would allow me then.
26:06	K: Ask him.
26:09	RG: Achyutji, now I have seen in the last several years, in India and outside, several notable changes in many individuals, and through them in the environments in which they live. I have seen, for instance, a woman in Africa, a white woman, whose father was buried alive by the Mao-Mao in Kenya, and who was able not only to forgive and restore relations with former members of the Mao-Mao or present members of the Mao-Mao, but is able to work with them, for something new and better in Africa. I have also met several people in the North-Eastern part of India about which Dr Aram was speaking, and Achyutji was speaking, where I have seen people who have sworn revenge, who have desired to kill others, now working hand in hand with them. Now, whatever name we give to the previous situation, I would regard the change in the situation as highly desirable and highly necessary throughout the world. I agree that the new attitude may not be absolutely maximum, that perhaps if love is only seen as the opposite of hate, it is perhaps a very poor idea of the greatness of love in all its aspects that we may one day have, and should have, but I don’t personally feel inclined to scoff at minor and humble improvements.
27:51	K: Sir, sir, I am not scoffing.
27:57	RG: Well, I have the impression perhaps, sir, that you…
27:59	K: No, sir. I don’t scoff, nor am I cynical. I just want to know, are we talking about small incidents, or concerned whether human – you, he, and us and the rest of us – could have a brain that is not encompassed, held in a nationalistic, particularised attitude. That’s all I am asking, first.
28:43	DA: Krishnaji, I would agree that we should go beyond the nationalistic attitude and we should have a global outlook, but while we may think or have a global outlook we may have to act locally…
28:59	K: Sir, first the other. DA: Yes.
29:03	K: No, let’s discuss. You are bringing always locally.
29:08	AP: Sir, these both gentlemen… K: I know, sir…
29:11	AP: …are people with a deep commitment, not purely intellectual, that man and his well-being is indivisible. Now, having this as a deep inner conviction, one acts in whatever environment one is placed. Therefore one’s action must have a local bias, because you have to deal with... K: Understood, sir, don’t keep on repeating that. Sir, if I may point out, you have stated that over and over and over again.
29:43	AP: I am saying therefore, the fact that one is working in a limited situation does not restrict one’s personality. K: I am not sure, sir. You are putting first the local activity, and I am saying, if I may point out most humbly and respectfully, that have we got this quality of a global mind, first? Not Nagaland changes, South Africa, little bit there, and me working in a little, little garden, and so on, but – this is not cynical or scoffing – but the world, humanity I feel, humanity, not a particular individual, humanity…
30:29	DA: Yes.
30:30	K: …is in a great crisis, tremendous crisis. Humanity being – shall I go into all that?
30:43	AP: Please. DA: Please.
30:47	K: Humanity, human beings, whether in India, Russia, America, China, Japan, and so on, are going through a great turmoil – right? – whether they’re American, and so on, they suffer a great deal, confused, uncertain. They are questioning the very God and the very existence of religions. And so, and people here in this country too are questioning the Gods and the Almighty, the temples, and all that business. So, human consciousness is shared by all of us, it’s not your consciousness or my consciousness, it’s human consciousness. Right? Therefore, psychologically, we are not individuals. You may be tall, I may be short, I may be tall, fair, or you are dark – that’s outward changes, outward facts. You are a man, another is a woman. But psychologically, inwardly, we all share the same ground. So, there is no individuality as far as I’m concerned. And this rampant individuality in the world, – personal, non-personal, which all becomes individual – is creating havoc in the world, so-called freedom of the individual. It’s an illusion as far as I’m concerned.
32:38	DA: But, Krishnaji, would you... may I say this?
32:41	K: Please, sir.
32:42	DA: When you go beyond the ego state, it becomes a general...
32:52	AP: Generalisation. DA:...generalisation. That is so long as you have the ego you have the individuality.
32:59	K: No. Sir, let’s look, sir. What do you mean by the word ‘ego’? This is not a philosophical discussion.
33:16	RG: It’s very hard for me to accept that we are not individuals when all of us have come here to talk with J. Krishnamurti.
33:22	K: No, sir, no I am not J. Krishn... I am not JK. That’s just a name.
33:28	RG: Well, you are Krishnaji.
33:30	K: Oh, no, that’s just a word, a symbol, it has no value.
33:35	RG: Well…
33:36	K: Sir, it’s like a sanyasi – puts on a robe, he’s left all that nonsense.
33:43	RG: Yes, well, if you were to take a clear stand as you seem to do, sir, that there is no such thing as individuality, I, with very great respect, would register my disagreement with that.
33:56	K: Delighted. Now let’s talk about it.
33:58	RG: And… K: No, No.
33:59	RG: I would make a distinction between individuality and individualism, which I see as the disease. But, I see each individual as a very special person, with wonderful unique characteristics.
34:12	K: Oh, sir, you are going by the old-fashioned business.
34:15	RG: Well... K: Which is, just a minute, sir. I am not cynical, I am not being impatient, I’m…
34:20	RG: I just wanted to say one thing, sir. Perhaps I should not have used the word ‘scoffing’. But I still feel that there is an inclination to regard minor, local level, national level improvements as rather unimportant. K: I do.
34:42	RG: And this is where I, with great respect, have a different point of view. K: I also with great respect...
34:50	RG: Because I feel, you know, I feel that small, marginal improvements are also worth having. You know, I make a little, draw an analogy from the sun and the earth. The earth is so many – god knows how many millions of miles away – and the difference between the north pole’s distance and the sun, and the equator’s distance and the sun is a very, very, very, very tiny difference, utterly insignificant, and yet, in our actual life, it makes such a great difference to this earth and to the people living.
35:22	K: Sir, sir...
35:23	RG: And in the same way I just want to stand up and be counted in favour of minor, marginal changes.
35:31	DA: I wouldn’t say marginal, as a matter of fact. I won’t accept your, I mean, I just... Rajmohanji, let us take the population problem, which is a global problem, Krishnaji?
35:42	K: Yes, sir. DA: It is a global problem?
35:44	K: It’s a global problem. Starvation is a global problem. DA: Is a global problem.
35:47	K: And social change is a global problem.
35:50	DA: Yes.
35:51	K: They are poor in America, poor in Africa, poor in this country, poor in Japan – we are one humanity.
35:59	DA: Rajmohan Gandhiji, this population, now in Gandhigram – I am going back to the local situation, but there is good reason. Dr Soundaram, our Chancellor, the founder of Gandhigram, who no doubt derived her inspiration from Gandhiji, but followed her own fresh approach to the population issue, and in Athur block where we have been working consistently for many years, the birth rate has been brought down from 35 per thousand to 21 per thousand. And as Achyutji mentioned earlier, one of our 26 villages has already attained zero population growth rate. I do believe that what has been achieved in that village of Kanivanuthu, has global significance. Here is one village community, the men and women of that village have done what India may do after thirty years or forty years. India as a whole may not reach zero population growth rate till maybe three or four decades, let’s say.
37:13	K: Sir, recently, last year, or a year before, top scientists met. And if there is a nuclear war, the whole earth will be destroyed because the nuclear explosion will create so much smoke, dust, it will cover the earth with darkness. And the temperature of the earth will be -5, for years, and nothing will exist. Your global little change there, in your village – just a minute, sir – I am not belittling that. DA: No.
37:57	K: That’s why I am asking you, to show you, or requesting you to look at something else. Prayers have failed, religions have failed, to change man. They have not stopped wars: Pakistan, India, Russia and America. They have not stopped wars. Right? And we are facing a tremendous war situation, and a local thing, when they are creating a tremendous chaos in the world, I say all right. So how do you deal with that human brain which is creating the mess and trying to solve the mess, and finding it cannot do it? And you are talking to me about little village doing good. I am not belittling, sir, I am not saying it should not. And I say, for God’s sake, what are these people talking about? Just a minute, Achyutji, just a minute, I know you’ve... I know. I am a German, right in the middle of the two great powers. I am scared stiff. And you come along and tell me we are doing little bit there. I say… DA: May I respectfully ask?
39:33	K: I am respectfully saying this.
39:37	DA: This global crisis, this is the crisis of the threats of nuclear war, what would you suggest should be done, to face this crisis, to resolve this crisis?
39:49	K: I then do what...
39:50	AP: Should it paralyse our initiative for operating effectively within the sphere of one’s own life.
40:01	K: What is this?
40:02	AP: I live wherever I am. And around me there are my daily challenges. Should the view point of the global threat paralyse me to such an extent as to prevent me from acting kindly…
40:19	K: Perhaps you are paralysed! AP:...acting urgently.
40:21	K: Perhaps you’re paralysed.
40:25	AP: Then I would like to know how I can get out of that, because that is the reason… K: That’s what I am asking, sir. The brain cells contain all the past experience, knowledge and memory. This is scientifically proved, though the speaker has been saying for years and years. And unless there is a mutation there, human beings will go on everlastingly like this – wars, little improvement, marginal changes, better than the... etc., etc., etc. You understand? I put this most respectfully forward.
41:15	AP: But since we do not know how to get that...
41:19	K: Wait, sir. Do we see the necessity of that? Not marginal, forgive me, not my going to, doing little village and creating birth control – blah, blah – but is it possible for a human consciousness which is contained in the brain – right? – and whether there can be a mutation in that. That’s all my point. I am not saying marginal activity is not necessary, I am not saying the village improvement or all that, I am saying, yes…
42:06	RG: You would say they are necessary.
42:09	K: Perhaps. It may not be necessary. There may be something, totally different might happen.
42:18	RG: But in the absence of clarity…
42:20	K: That’s it. May I…
42:23	RG: I apologise for using one of your words.
42:25	K: May I most respectfully – in the absence of clarity. Why isn’t there a clarity?
42:32	RG: But that wasn’t my complete sentence, sir. In the absence of clarity on how to bring about a simultaneous change in billions of brains all over the world, I am aware of the need for that change very clearly, but I do not know of any method of achieving that rapidly, and until and unless I find, or somebody else enables me to find a way of doing so, I am perfectly content with my relatively unsatisfactory approach.
43:03	K: Then continue, sir, most respectfully point out, continue.
43:07	RG: Well, I should be, with every blessing on your part, sir, I will continue. K: No, no, sir. Sir, sir, a general once came to me, a general of the army, and said give me your blessings. Sir, let’s be simple. This has been a question which you raised just now: I may change – mutation. It may not affect the majority – right? – the vast majority of human beings – right? – that’s what you said.
43:48	RG: Well, perhaps that was an implication of what I said.
43:51	K: That’s right. Let’s be simple about these things. RG: Yes.
43:54	K: And therefore don’t bother to change, it doesn’t affect the majority. This is one argument which has been well thrashed-out. The other argument is, what’s the point for you to change when humanity doesn’t change? Right? My question is, if I may most respectfully point out, we are not talking about individual change, personal change, minimal change. I am talking about, the speaker is saying, there must be a radical, fundamental mutation in the whole consciousness of man. That is where the crisis is, not nuclear war. Right, sir?
44:49	RG: Well, I myself would, since I have, I’m afraid my preference is, I prefer to use the word ‘heart’ often for the mind, because I feel that the knowledge is one thing, but I think it’s the passions of hate and fear and greed in us which create the possibility of nuclear war.
45:14	K: So, get rid of greed and hate. RG: Ah, I would like to.
45:22	K: But, sir, and you go and do – most respectfully – you go do social work when you are frightened, and scared and greedy?
45:33	DA: No, Krishnaji, no question of going to social work when you are frightened.
45:38	K: The gentleman says that.
45:39	AP: No, he doesn’t. RG: I don’t think I said that.
45:42	AP: He doesn’t say that.
45:43	K: Then what? You see, that’s what I want. You are going off, you are saying one thing, I am saying another. Sir, do we acknowledge or see the fact that our consciousness, what we call individual consciousness, is shared by all humanity.
46:07	RG: Yes. I accept that. K: What do you mean accept it?
46:11	RG: I agree with it.
46:12	K: What do you mean by that, most respectfully?
46:16	RG: Well, I hesitate to answer because then you will ask me what I mean by that.
46:21	K: No, I am not saying, I want to know, when you say I agree with you, what are you agreeing with – the idea or the fact. The fact that you, Mr Gandhi, we all of us, share the same consciousness, which is, we are all frightened, we are all greedy, violent, stupid, and so on, so on.
46:54	RG: I would say we all have the same human nature.
46:58	K: Same consciousness as human nature. All right, if you prefer that word. Therefore you are no longer a particularised consciousness.
47:11	RG: Well, I mean in addition to sharing the general weaknesses of human nature, I am who I am also as an individual, I personally believe that.
47:20	K: What do you mean believe? That’s your conditioning.
47:27	RG: Could be.
47:28	K: Sir, you are unable to say, either say it is so, not, could be, and leave it there. This is a dialogue…
47:36	RG: Yes.
47:37	K: …exchange of conversation between two people, friendly, not opposed to each other. We are having a dialogue. In a dialogue, we question everything.
47:52	RG: There is…
47:52	K: Your belief, my belief, your attitude, my attitude, we question everything to find out what is truth.
48:01	AP: Sir, shall I simplify the matter like this – that these two friends have found from experience?
48:13	K: Some?
48:15	AP: Have found from experience that it is necessary to operate simultaneously on one’s psyche and on the person next to you, the neighbour.
48:27	K: Understood. I question this… AP: You are saying...
48:30	K: Achyutji…
48:30	AP: I am saying your position is, that you question this issue of simultaneity. Now, your position is not yet clear to us.
48:46	K: You see, sir, if we are based on personal experience, we are lost.
48:50	AP: Yes.
48:55	K: These two gentlemen have been saying all my personal experience, my... then it becomes very, very personal. But I am questioning: humanity, sir, is supposed to have lived on this earth for about fifty thousand years. From the ape we have evolved to what we are now, and it has taken fifty thousand years for homo sapiens or human being. And we are, during these long years of invasion and evolution, we are more or less the same – more or less: we are greedy. fearful, security, personal – all that. From the most savage primitive, we have not moved very far. We have moved a foot. You understand? We have not moved. Technologically, we have moved enormously. Psychologically, we are about the same. We believe in god almighty, those poor fellows also believe in god almighty, only they call it something else, but it’s the same attitude – fear. Right? And we can go on like this for the next fifty thousand years, unless we are wiped off the face of the earth. Right? And I question that, this evolutionary, gradual process. I am not Trotskian. He talked about perpetual physical revolution. I am not saying that. Or… I am only pointing out, we have lived on this unfortunate and beautiful earth for the last fifty thousand years as human beings, we have not evolved. That’s a fact, you can’t refute it. There have been religions after religions – right? – Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism – and man has manipulated these things and said yes. The other day Mr Jha, you know perhaps...
51:28	DA: Yes.
51:31	K: Then he told us: A man was building a temple, and after having built the temple, he found he was getting great deal of money from that temple. So he said I am going to build temples all over India – right, sir? – and make more money. I am not saying this. I am just pointing out.
51:57	RG: Oh, yes, indeed. I was very grateful, sir, that you did concede that humanity perhaps may have moved a foot over these centuries.
52:06	K: Oh, sir, that’s… RG: I know, but I want to say that even though the improvement over time may seem small or may in fact be small, I want to be grateful for it. Now, I notice, for instance, in our own country, say, on the question of untouchability, I think our crimes against the so-called untouchables are continuing. But I also notice that amongst the others there has been a great change in the attitude over the years. And similar issues in the world where I personally feel that humanity has moved forward. I think, relatively speaking again, there is greater concern in one corner of the world for the rest of the world today than there was some time back.
52:44	K: No...
52:44	RG: Now, simultaneously of course, there is this threat of nuclear war, imminent threat possibly.
52:51	K: Sir, it is the nationalities that are creating war.
52:55	RG: Well, it’s the…
52:57	K: One of the causes. Economic division...
53:00	RG: Sure. K:...religious division, social division, individual divisions are creating this mess in the world. It’s a fact.
53:13	RG: It is a fact. K: So change the thing. Not say, well, I am that Indian who’s removed this...
53:19	RG: Sir, may I hold you to this, you said change the thing. How shall we do, sir? K: I will show you. Are you really interested in this? RG: Yes.
53:28	K: That means you have to leave your position, and I leave my position. We have no stand, we both are inquiring. Ah, no, no.
53:44	RG: Yes. K: Just a minute, sir, please. To inquire, you must be free. As a scientist, you may have theories, you may have hypotheses, you may have all past knowledge. If you want to discover something new, you push all of that aside. You must be free to look through the microscope and find out. Right? That’s a fact. Have you, if I may most respectfully ask, put aside all that: your individuality, your personal experience, your knowledge, your nationality, your name, and all that, and two people, amicable, have a dialogue about this, and to explore it. Otherwise I may think I am exploring, but I am tied.
54:47	RG: Oh, I fully concede that. I would like to have an absolutely open mind, but I would like to have...
54:51	K: Not an open mind, forgive me. I have a mind that has left all its knowledge behind. Otherwise you can’ t explore.
55:07	DA: I would agree with that.
55:10	K: Two against one. If you and I, both of us learn: this is a fact. I have left it. I am no longer a Hindu, I am no longer all the rest of it. I just inquire. I’m not academic: I don’t believe in God, I believe in God – all that put aside.
55:42	RG: But are we not entitled to inquire what Krishnaji’s inquiries thus far have shown him?
55:49	K: What? What is this?
55:52	RG: On how to end all these divisions, which…
55:57	K: No, sir, I am not talking about divisions. You understand? I am saying you and I are exploring. Right? RG: Yes.
56:07	K: To explore, you must forget and I must forget our experiences, our knowledge, our conditioning. I am a Hindu, I am Muslim – put all that aside to explore. If I cannot do that, I cannot explore, to discover or to find what is truth. If I am, sir, if I may most respectfully point out, if I am attached being a catholic, believe in Jesus, believe in all that stuff, I can’t move. This is logical.
56:58	RG: Somehow, I still feel that the position of an open mind is a better position for this reason: that even if I say to myself I will forget everything...
57:09	K: No! RG:...I will stop being what I am, or – I forget the precise phrases you use, but that was the... K: Excuse me, sir. I am only saying, to inquire…
57:30	RG: Yes. K: …into my health. If I want to inquire about my health, I go to a doctor, and he says, look, you cannot eat this, this, this because the dead will... food consciousness. So I am open to what he suggests. Right, sir? RG: Yes.
57:54	K: Now, I am saying, to inquire, to explore, find out, you and I who are having a dialogue, must be free to look. That’s all. Which means you must take off your coloured glasses of prejudice, and I must remove my prejudices and look at it afresh. That’s all I am saying.
58:24	AP: Sir, Dr Aram has another appointment. He will go, we will carry on. K: What, sir?
58:28	AP: Dr Aram has another appointment. K: I am sorry...
58:31	DA.: Please excuse me, sir, this was...
58:35	AP: We will carry on, sir. DA: Thank you very much.
58:37	K: No, sir. DA: Thank you very much.
58:40	K: I don’t feel… AP: No, we must carry on. This is very interesting point. RG: Yes.
58:44	AP: We are at a very interesting point, we should carry on.
58:50	RG: I agree that we must inquire and I certainly would like to shed prejudices I have, although I would not like to shed the beliefs I have.
58:59	K: Same thing, sir.
59:01	RG: Well, I don’t know whether they are the same thing.
59:04	K: I’ll show it to you if you are willing to... Why should one have beliefs at all?
59:11	RG: Because a – because I cannot envisage a situation where a man lives with no beliefs. He must have – not to have a belief is also a decision of some kind.
59:20	K: No!
59:22	RG: And therefore, since I cannot envisage a position where man is without belief, and since I recognise that there are areas where it is not possible to know, and where one must believe, I am content, satisfied, to believe, and I would like to be persuaded that there is the possibility of not believing.
59:43	K: Why do we believe? Why do you believe? Personally, I am very clear on this matter. I have no beliefs, none whatever – God, India, nobody.
1:00:08	RG: Would you say that you believe in what I have been given this, the core of Krishnaji’s teaching?
1:00:14	K: No. I don’t believe. Either it is, or it’s not.
1:00:24	RG: Well, that also is a… K: No, no…
1:00:27	RG: It’s a simultaneous possibility of two things. I don’t know whether in this world we can do away with belief. I don’t see that. K: No, sir, you see, let’s inquire. You take a stand.
1:00:50	RG: I have to place my cards on the table.
1:00:53	K: No, you’ve just... you took a stand: I believe; I don’t believe anybody who can live on this earth without belief.
1:01:00	RG: I said I don’t believe… yes, that is my position, it’s my view.
1:01:05	K: Yes, move away from there.
1:01:09	RG: Why? I must have reason to do so.
1:01:11	AP: Seeing that beliefs are the cause of conflict, because the moment you have one belief and I have another belief, there is conflict between us. If on the other hand we are both prepared to look at facts as they are and put our beliefs aside, then there is a new situation. So, it is possible for two people to put away their beliefs in order to look at facts as they are. Perhaps we will move further.
1:01:41	K: I, personally, don’t believe in God, Almighty. I don’t believe in Jesus or Krishna, Rama, Sita – nothing. They are all invented by thought.
1:02:01	RG: That’s also your belief, sir. K: No, no. You see, sir, forgive me, I’ll explain. Belief implies, as you pointed out, not knowing, and I believe: I don’t know if God exists, but I believe in God.
1:02:29	RG: I would put it differently. I would say that not being able to…
1:02:33	K: Prove… RG: Prove…
1:02:35	K: I believe. RG: Yes, and I believe. And you choose not to believe. K: No! I am exploring, sir. I believe, I don’t believe – I want to find out.
1:02:47	RG: No, you said that I believe that there is no…
1:02:50	K: No, sir, I did not say, that is an easy thing to say. For me, there is no God.
1:02:57	RG: Well, you are expressing it in four, five terms. I say, for me, there is God. K: Now, just a minute. Let’s find out the truth whether there is God or no God, whether the God is invented by man because he’s frightened, fearful, suffers, constant turmoil, therefore he believes something outside.
1:03:27	RG: Or he may look at the flowers and the birds and also believe in God. K: No.
1:03:32	RG: It is the wonder of the world too may turn him towards God, not just the fears of the world, not just the fear of death...
1:03:40	K: No, sir, sir.
1:03:42	RG:...although that also has a place.
1:03:45	K: If you don’t mind, if I may point out, we are investigating…
1:03:52	RG: But we have a right to marvel. We have a right to marvel at the human body, at the human eye, the human brain. K: Sir.
1:03:58	RG: Not just fear. It’s a sense of wonder.
1:04:03	K: All right. Wonder. I wonder if there is God.
1:04:10	RG: Sometimes I wonder too.
1:04:13	K: But that doesn’t answer my question. Could you and I have a dialogue exploring into the reality, whether there is, or there is not. If I say there is, and you say sorry I don’t, then we are lost. We are contradicting each other. If you are interested in exploring and I am interested in exploring, both of us, then we can proceed, which means freedom from all concepts.
1:04:49	RG: I think I still feel that I can’t quite see the rightness of moving away from a position of ‘I have an open mind’. I do not see abandoning beliefs somehow, although I have a readiness to abandon them, should I be convinced.
1:05:11	K: What? RG: If I am convinced…
1:05:15	K: Not convinced, how can... Who is going to convince you?
1:05:20	RG: My wife says the same thing to me at times...
1:05:22	K: No, I am not interested in what your wife says to you.
1:05:25	RG:...that it is very hard to convince me.
1:05:27	K: I am not trying to convince you. I am not trying to say believe in me.
1:05:33	RG: I know you are not, I know you are not.
1:05:35	K: All right. So, please, examine. And you are unwilling to examine. That’s all.
1:05:47	RG: I know, I disagree with that. I feel I am willing to examine. I also feel that I would be, I would like... you know, I am in this position where I believe in God...
1:06:03	K: No, sir, let’s examine, I say. You keep on repeating I believe in God, but I say let’s find out. Your belief has nothing to do with God. He may exist, he may not exist, but you believe.
1:06:23	RG: I do.
1:06:24	K: Yes, and you keep on repeating that. That’s what the world is saying. RG: I must be truthful.
1:06:29	K: Sir, it’s not a question of truth. A catholic believes in Jesus – right? – he is the only saviour of mankind. Right? Right, sir?
1:06:41	RG: Yes.
1:06:43	K: A Catholic says that. RG: Protestants also.
1:06:47	K: Protestants, Hindus in their own way. It’s the same question. I say, look, to find out the truth of the matter, the truth, not according to you or according to me, we must both have a dialogue and we question our beliefs, our ideas, our concepts. And by questioning you may be free then, then we can find out. But apparently, sir, if I may point out, you are very unwilling. You say, ‘I believe in God’, and you state that. You may be catholic – I have met many of them – I believe. That’s the end of it. And the communists say – I have a great many friends who are communists – they say – Marx, Engel, Lenin. They are finished, you can’t discuss with them.
1:07:47	RG: Yes. All Achyutji’s point was, the variety of beliefs are a cause or the cause of tension in the world – I wonder how true that is.
1:08:14	K: Yes, the communists believe in Marx, Engel, Stalin. They’ve got a system and they believe in that system.
1:08:29	RG: No, my point was that... K: No, just a minute, sir. The democrats have their own system, they believe in it. So the two beliefs are at each other’s throats.
1:08:39	RG: But also we have communists at one another’s throats and democrats at one another’s throats.
1:08:43	K: Of course.
1:08:44	RG: And people holding the same beliefs also fight each other showing that belief is not the sole cause at any rate of tension. That’s all I wanted to bring out. I think it’s possible to continue with our beliefs, and to be open, even open to the possibility that one has deluded oneself. I don’t deny that, although I don’t accept that either. But I think as a precondition for inquiry or investigation the abandonment of all previously held beliefs – sorry, I can’t buy that.
1:09:18	AP: No, what I say is, for two people to communicate with each other...
1:09:23	RG: Yes.
1:09:23	AP:...is it possible to put belief on the shelf for the time being, so that we talk to each other without any preconditions.
1:09:33	Sunanda Patwardhan: He says he cannot.
1:09:34	AP: No, no. He’s just asking.
1:09:37	RG: I think purely as an intellectual discussion…
1:09:39	SP: No. AP: No. You see, I say that with this mind which has put aside its beliefs, not given them up, put them aside for the time being, there is greater communication. Is it? We can try out. I say, it would be interesting to try out.
1:10:03	RG: I can’t say I’ve really fully understood this. I mean, I can understand an intellectual... Assuming that God... or assuming that I should not believe that God exists, why should I… K: No, I did not say that.
1:10:15	RG: What is the meaning of putting it on one side or on the shelf?
1:10:18	K: No, I did not say all this.
1:10:20	RG: Achyutji said it. AP: I just said…
1:10:22	K: He’s a right to say, but I did not say that, I was saying...
1:10:26	RG: I was speaking, responding to him.
1:10:28	K: I said there must be freedom to inquire.
1:10:30	RG: Yes, sir, agreed.
1:10:32	K: Right, sir, which means you drop your belief, I drop mine.
1:10:37	RG: Oh, dropping? You draw distinction between dropping and putting it on the shelf.
1:10:43	K: Sir, I will use much stronger phrase. You cut out your beliefs and I’ll cut out my beliefs.
1:10:53	RG: Well, I say I plead an inability to do so.
1:10:55	K: Then it is finished, then there is no inquiry. It’s like talking to a catholic, devout catholic. He says I’ll go up to a point, afterwards I won’t discuss with you. Because I know why he won’t – he is scared. I am not saying you are. He’s scared. He’ll say my God, if I don’t believe in Jesus, where am I? I am faced with my own self.
1:11:21	RG: That could be one reason, or since you’re generous enough to say that this does not apply to me…
1:11:27	K: I didn’t, all right, may, I said.
1:11:30	RG: Well, I thought you said this doesn’t apply to you. But, I am unwilling to drop my belief, because I am convinced of the rightness of the belief. So it is not fear. I…
1:11:45	K: He is also convinced of the rightness of his belief.
1:11:48	RG: Sure.
1:11:49	K: So, no conversation is possible.
1:11:54	RG: But friendship is possible.
1:11:55	K: No. You and I can be friends, but you go your way, I go my way.
1:12:02	RG: Well, I hope I go a wiser man. K: Ah, that’s all just a... Well, we are talking much deeper things, sir. Human brain needs freedom, otherwise it cannot flower. If I am tethered to Jesus, or Krishna or to God, I cannot go very far. Right, sir? That’s that. That ends the conversation.
1:12:53	RG: Thank you for this… K: No, sir.
1:12:54	RG: …chance to meet with you. K: Thank you. Achyutji, this is exactly what is happening in the world. What’s the name, Reagan says, President Reagan says, I’ll go that far only, and Gorbachev says, I will go only that far. Therefore they never meet. You go your way and I do the same.
1:13:34	AP: What I was saying is that if two people are willing to communicate without preconditions, then the beliefs that you have and whatever he may have to say, for the time being they are put aside because they don’t come in the course of the communication as barriers to communication. Do you understand this position?
1:14:02	RG: I think I do. But I think you are recommending an intellectual discussion with assumptions of, you know...
1:14:09	AP: No assumptions on either side.
1:14:11	RG: Yes. Whereas he is advocating, you know… much stronger…
1:14:16	AP: You know, not intellectual communication. What I am saying is, two people have to have a dialogue. Then each person must put his own prejudices or preconceptions aside for the moment, so that they don’t come, impede communication.
1:14:38	RG: Well, if I understand you, the way I understand it, I am willing to go along with that. But if I understand this as a genuine request, inwardly, to suspend and give up one’s beliefs – sorry.
1:14:53	AP: No, no. First as I say, first for communication to come into being, there is a readiness to say, let me see, I don’t want to put any impediments to communication, we can communicate. Then the problem that we are interested in is, that is there a course possible for man for a radical change in consciousness. This is a question of shared interest...
1:15:15	RG: Yes. Yes.
1:15:16	AP: We see the urgency of it, we want to understand it. Therefore I feel that if the urgency of the question is conceded, then we should be prepared to put away the impediments to communication. That is all I was saying.
1:15:29	RG: I would really like to know Krishnaji’s views on that, on how…
1:15:33	K: On what, sir?
1:15:36	RG: You know, since he spoke of shared concerns, I would...
1:15:41	K: Shared concerns. RG: Concerns about the world.
1:15:44	AP:...is change, radical change in human consciousness.
1:15:47	RG: Consciousness, I would be tremendously keen to know about Krishnaji’s ideas on how to...
1:15:54	K: Not ideas.
1:15:57	AP: Say, semantics. K: Ah...
1:15:59	RG: Well, what would you say?
1:16:00	K: Facts. Ideas are not facts.
1:16:04	RG: But I said Krishnaji’s ideas… am I entitled to use the phrase Krishnaji’s facts?
1:16:08	K: No, no. AP: They can’t be Krishnaji’s facts.
1:16:10	RG: Then what should I say? What? Krishnaji is blank on the subject, what would you like to say?
1:16:16	K: Sir, sir, just a moment. Please, deal only with facts, not with ideas, theories, problems, suppositions, meanings.
1:16:26	RG: But I...
1:16:28	K: Sir, please, did you listen to what I said? He says, he’s only dealing with facts, not with ideas, not with beliefs, not with concepts. Only facts. That there’s a nuclear threat of war...
1:16:48	RG: Yes. K:...man suffers, man believes, man has invented all the religious activity…
1:17:00	RG: Man also disbelieves, there are many who disbelieve...
1:17:03	K: Of course, of course. You don’t have to say, that’s so obvious. And man has created this mess in the world.
1:17:16	RG: Yes. K: Through nationalism...
1:17:19	RG: Yes. K:...through ideals…
1:17:26	RG: Through his selfishness.
1:17:27	K: …Ideals, you have your ideals, the communists have...
1:17:34	RG: But it is possible to say that ideals have perhaps reduced the suffering in the world also. It is possible to hold that ideals have also reduced the suffering in the world.
1:17:46	K: No, no. I question that.
1:17:50	RG: Yes, but I think that is your way of looking at it.
1:17:52	K: No, no. Not my way, I say let’s question it, not say they have reduced, and state a position. You have… RG: No, do you see what I’m saying? You know, for instance, when I spoke about, say, the improvement in the attitude on the untouchability question in India. I say that idealism over a period of time has brought about that improvement. The attitude to the blacks…
1:18:15	K: Sir, I know all that, sir, I know all that. But you are missing my point, if I may respectfully point out. Ideals have divided the people in the world. Communist ideal, so…
1:18:28	RG: If I may say so, I am not shy of paradoxes. I say ideals have both divided the world and helped the world.
1:18:37	K: I say no. I am willing to let my belief go and you let your belief go. Move away from this. AP: Move away from this. So what I say is the central issue, which is far more urgent and about which there is a shared concern, is the crisis of humanity, which is not merely a crisis of atomic threat, but a crisis in the consciousness of man.
1:19:04	RG: Yes.
1:19:05	AP: And now we are here meeting for a dialogue to say, can we approach this crisis of human consciousness in a totally new way. That means we must be prepared to be open to say: Is there another way of looking at this crisis? That’s all. RG: Oh, yes, I am happy with that.
1:19:29	AP: That is all I am saying.
1:19:30	RG: With your formulation, I am happy, Achyutiji.
1:19:32	AP: But I say that is what I would like to happen. That I would like that if you are willing to look at it. I say, just look at this crisis. RG: Yes.
1:19:42	K: Sir, you and I have been here for nearly...
1:19:45	SP: One and a half hours. K:...nearly an hour and half. We haven’t moved.
1:19:49	RG: We don’t know. K: Sir, sir, don’t, don’t. We haven’t moved. I say move. Drop your ideas, put aside your beliefs, and all the rest of it. You say no, beliefs have their right place, beliefs, ideals, God, you don’t believe, atheists don’t believe. So we remain where we are, with your God, Catholics with their God, communists with their God – Lenin. That’s all.
1:20:17	AP: And I am saying that if two people have a shared concern for the crisis in human consciousness, they can for the time being put aside everything else and only meet at that level, with deep concern and with common interest, shared interest, in the crisis of human survival which is created by consciousness.
1:20:44	K: Sir, you keep on repeating that. Mr Gandhi says I won’t change my...
1:20:51	AP: No, I don’t think he says this.
1:20:53	K: He says I believe in God, I believe in prayer…
1:20:56	AP: Of course, of course, sir, we all remain what we are. When I say that if two people meet to discuss…
1:21:03	K: We haven’t met, sir.
1:21:04	AP: That is what I am saying. I am trying to say that…
1:21:07	K: Don’t keep on repeating, we haven’t met.
1:21:10	AP: I am saying it is possible for two people to meet, that is all.
1:21:13	K: It has not been possible. This is what I am saying, sir. Catholics don’t meet communists. Hindus – absolute, stale, conditioned Hindu – won’t even meet a Muslim. They talk about...
1:21:34	AP: It is not a case like that. K: This is what’s happening.
1:21:40	AP: I don’t think so. K: We will stop.
1:21:45	AP: No, we will stop. That is not the problem. The problem is that if idioms divide, then it should be possible for us to resolve the idioms that divide.
1:21:55	K: Sir, I am not an Indian. AP: Pardon?
1:21:58	K: I am not an Indian. RG: No, no idioms.
1:22:01	AP: I said, not Indians, idioms, that is if the language divides, it should be possible for us to transcend the barrier of language to make communication possible, meaningful communication possible. That’s all I am saying.
1:22:17	RG: I would absolutely agree with that.
1:22:19	K: Then let go your idiom.
1:22:21	AP: Both, you see, I say it is possible.
1:22:23	K: I’ll let go my... Both of us drop all our ideas.
1:22:26	AP: We will meet again, sir. K: Let’s find out.
1:22:37	AP: If you wish. What I mean is that if you and I...
1:22:41	RG: But my difficulty is, you want me to drop my idioms, I am ready…
1:22:45	AP: No, I am not.
1:22:46	RG: That was what he said. He wants me to drop my belief. I am willing to go along with the change of idiom but not…
1:22:52	AP: No, no. He doesn’t want you to do anything.
1:22:58	K: Sir, I have listened to two great scientists, we had a dialogue... And I said, yes, we all took... One of them stuck to his point of view, absolutely, and we stopped discussing – right? – and I’m afraid we are the same. How would you meet a total atheist?
1:23:39	RG: Oh, willingly.
1:23:41	K: Wait, sir, wait, sir, wait, sir, you haven’t understood.
1:23:43	RG: I met a fair number.
1:23:44	K: Wait, sir, please. He doesn’t believe in God.
1:23:49	RG: I am aware.
1:23:50	K: Yes. How do you have a conversation with him?
1:23:52	RG: I do, I mean, I don’t know how to recap it, but I have had a practice that I have had hundreds of conversations...
1:23:59	K: Sir, sir… RG:...with atheists and communists.
1:24:01	K: …suppose if I am total atheist. I don’t believe in God. …continue.
1:24:12	RG: Well, I would say how do we reduce the selfishness in the world?
1:24:16	K: I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with God.
1:24:19	RG: No, many atheists are interested in reducing human selfishness.
1:24:24	K: No, no, no.
1:24:25	RG: So I can have a conversation with them.
1:24:27	K: Sir, I don’t believe in God. Don’t go back to suffering, and all that. I am talking of belief. You have…
1:24:35	RG: No, but it is not necessary that I must only talk with an atheist about atheism. Is it, sir? K: This becomes impossible. I am talking, I am asking you most politely and respectfully, don’t take a stand on God and I won’t take a stand on God either. But let us find out the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is not based on belief, and you say yes, I can’t let go... RG: I would say this, sir, you do not believe in God, I believe in God. Let us find out how together we can play our part in reducing the suffering of the world.
1:25:16	K: I know what I am doing to reduce suffering of the world, man’s suffering, talked about it for the last sixty years, it’s very simple. First of all, suffering is shared by all human beings.
1:25:33	RG: Yes.
1:25:37	K: Suffering is also, a great part of it is self-pity.
1:25:46	RG: Not all suffering is self-pity. K: Sir, would you kindly listen? In suffering – my son is lost, dead, I suffer. In that suffering, there is great loneliness, self-pity: I’ve lost somebody in his prime, all that’s involved. Emotionally self-concerned. Just a minute, sir. And this is shared by all human beings. It is not your suffering. It is not individual suffering. Mr Smith living in America, his wife leaves him – suffering. So we all share in the common suffering, it is all part of this.
1:26:46	RG: Yes.
1:26:46	K: So there is no individual suffering. And to grasp that, it takes tremendous honesty. I say, therefore there is no individuality at all. This is not my belief, it is so. You are conditioned by your parents, by your society, by your beliefs, and so on. So as long as those conditions exist – conditioned mind, brain – you are in perpetual…
1:27:33	RG: And how would you remove those conditions?
1:27:37	K: Conditioning. RG: Conditioning.
1:27:39	K: I say, first of all, be aware that you are conditioned. Don’t accept my word or anybody’s word. First find out you are conditioned – as a Hindu, as a Muslim, and so on. When you are aware, there is no choice. Be aware choicelessly that you are conditioned. You are conditioned by your name, you are conditioned by your experience, you are conditioned by your education and your reputation, and I am conditioned as a Catholic, and we never meet. We talk about meeting, we talk about friendliness, we talk about including society, and so on, but we never meet. My belief prevents me from meeting you. You believe in Krishna, whatever you believe, and I believe in Jesus, as the only saviour. We can join the same club, talk about social reform but we never meet.
1:29:37	RG: But we may still be friends and we may avoid war in the world.
1:29:41	K: Yes. But we don’t. You may, but the fact is these beliefs are destroying people. Chinese have specialised communists, they are against Russia.
1:30:00	RG: Because of rivalry.
1:30:02	K: Not only of rivalry. Because of economic reasons their idea – concept of communism by Russia, and all the rest of it – Russia has a different kind of communism. The Protestants are against the Catholics. I say, for god’s sake, don’t divide yourself by concepts, by ideas, by nationalities, and if you want to go on with it, I’m not preventing you that way you… They go to a creation point... and the conversation stops as it has stopped with us. Yes, sir, that’s finished.