Krishnamurti Subtitles home


ML70DSG3 - What makes one control?
Malibu, California - 14 March 1970
Discussion with Small Group 3



0:54 K:So what shall we talk over together? I don't know! (Laughter)
1:52 Q:Can we talk about violence?
2:04 K:All right, sir, if you want to talk about it. The superficial violence or the deep-rooted violence in man?
2:25 Q:Both.
2:33 K:What do you mean by that word 'violence'? Would you say any form of resistance is violence, any form of conformity is violence, or any form of discipline, in the sense of imitation, imitating a pattern, a violence? Which means really control. Any form of control is violence. No? I mean, merely throwing a brick at a bank or… that's one form of violence, killing another, anger, and so on, which we recognise very easily as violence. But there are other really much more vital and deeper layers of violence of which most of us are unconscious. At what level do you want to discuss this?
4:30 Q:Sir, does this mean that if I control myself so as not to eat meat, that that's a violent act, for example?
4:40 K:No, I said, sir, any form of control is violence. Don't immediately take an example, let's examine it. It may not be true. It is, but let's go into it, sir. To control or not to control. What would you consider violence? Hate is violence - but these are all very, very superficial forms of violence, aren't they?
5:34 Q:Can we look at violence as something that tears you apart? Anything which tears you apart. With control, something has to control something else and then you have division.
5:46 K:But look at it, sir, that's what… our whole culture is based on that - controlling, resisting, suppressing, imitating, conforming, adjusting. Would you call all that violence? What is the need to control? I get angry and I say, 'I must control.' Why?
6:37 Q:Well, in that case, one might fear harming someone else.
6:45 K:Go into it, sir, go into it a little more.
7:00 Q:What if there is lack of control?
7:08 K:You've controlled, haven't you? Would you call that violence?
7:15 Q:Yes.

K:Why?
7:20 Q:Because it's force.
7:28 Q:You can feel a pressure when you do that, when you control something, you can feel a tension.
7:40 K:It's really quite an extraordinarily complex question this, you know. Don't just brush it off by taking one example or… but get to the… if I may suggest, go behind the words.
7:55 Q:It's destructive. You feel that.
8:06 Q:It's as if we are talking about both doing violence to our own inner experience and talking about doing violence, damage to someone else or... property.
8:28 K:I don't think I've ever controlled.
8:31 Q:Never controlled? What happens?
8:34 K:Wait, wait, wait. And you say you have controlled. Why the two?
8:49 Q:Fear?
8:51 K:No, sir, don't just say 'fear' and then… Go, explore it a little bit. Let's explore it, sir. Here someone says, 'Look, I've lived so many years now and I've really never controlled. About anything.' Either it's an outrageous lie [laughs], outrageous statement, or it may be true, I want to find out, whether a life can be lived without control at all.
9:37 Q:Does that mean that you've never experienced anger?
9:42 K:No, no, anger is something different. We said, sir: what is violence? We were talking of violence. At what level are we talking about violence? The physical violence, the reaction, anger, hatred, and brutality, all that, or, at a level that is the source of all violence - not only physical but psychological and all the rest of it. Unless we tackle the deep source of it, mere pruning the branch has little meaning. Could we go into this? Would it interest you?
11:02 Q:Yes.
11:20 K:Why do you control?
11:30 Q:Fear?
11:32 Q:There is a threat. Because there's a threat. There seems to be a threat to me, when I want something different from what is.
11:56 K:Sir, would you like to find out how to live without control? Would it interest you?
12:08 Q:Yes.

K:Let's explore it, let's see. A person like… here, who's sitting here, says he has never controlled. It sounds appalling! And what does it mean? What is a life without control? Is that ever possible? So, I want to find out why I control. First let's begin with that - why do I control?
13:00 Q:Fear…

K:Is it fear?
13:05 Q:Fear, a threat.
13:11 K:Is it fear that makes me control? Or the memory of something which is unpleasant and that makes me control?
13:28 Q:Habit.
13:30 K:Yes, custom, habit, the educational… and everything. No, look into yourself, sir, what makes you control? Don't verbalise it too quickly, let's find out. What makes one control?
13:56 Q:You're conscious of yourself as apart from other things.
14:11 Q:Because I'm frightened, I want to get away from it and that makes me control.
14:19 Q:One doesn't seem to control if you're not aware of yourself. If you're not self-conscious, one doesn't control.
14:37 K:Go on, sir, you go into it.
14:39 Q:An image of how we should be.
14:46 Q:It seems to me both fear and desire lead to control.
15:04 K:Control means a form of suppression, doesn't it, a form of imitation, a resistance to something. Why? Why don't I flow, live? And that's perhaps what the younger generation want. You know, live, let everything happen. And is that justified too? The Victorian, the Puritanical, the Brahmanical, the Judaic sanctions and, you know, all those limitations, limitations, and one has conformed to all that and suddenly say, 'What is the point of it all?' and break through. I wish we could discuss this really, go into it very deeply. It would be worthwhile because I think… freedom is that. Freedom is a sense of complete denial of control, complete non-acceptance of pattern. Is that possible in life? I have to live with my wife, or girl, whatever it is, I have to live with somebody, and I've always to adjust myself. I can't tell her or him everything, and therefore there's a restraint, there's a resistance. It's a form of living a life of a lie. I'm always lying. I don't know… And I... Go on, sirs, I am talking, I don't want…
18:12 Q:I find that when I have no resistance it is going along with something, I have no resistance at all. I find I can do that when I have a certain confidence that I can cope with the consequence.
18:27 K:When you have confidence…
18:28 Q:That I can cope with the consequence.
18:30 K:Is that it? Is it that having confidence brings about a mind that is free from all resistance? Is that it? Having confidence? Confidence in what?
18:50 Q:That whatever happens…
18:52 K:No, sir, see the danger of it, having confidence.
18:58 Q:Confidence in that whatever happens I will deal with it somehow, go along with it.
19:10 Q:Sir, I see one tries that. He's in a situation where he is a self. He's just feeling direct all the facts come out, actually protects nothing, and then finds he's being… that somehow he's being manipulated, utilised, so far. Now, what is that set-up? But if you know that happens, one begins to change, I mean to behave differently, to protect oneself. Is that control?
20:34 K:Sir, if you're controlling all the time, where is freedom? If you're always resisting, resisting, where is the sense of complete… the beauty of it? And our life is a series of controls, resistances.
21:53 Is this something new, and so we are rather puzzled?
22:05 Q:What puzzles me is you can't ever… it seems impossible to do something different than controlling. I mean, then we react against it, we say, 'Oh, I'll be myself,' and you just go around and then there's a reaction to it.
22:21 K:No, sir. When you say, 'I'll be myself,' what does that mean?
22:28 Q:Well, that phrase doesn't have much meaning, but it generally means, I suppose, to go against or to… It has a million meanings. [Laughs]
22:53 Q:Perhaps we could ask what we mean by control, sir?
22:57 K:Ask it, sir.
22:59 Q:What do you mean when you say 'control,' sir? What do you mean?
23:02 K:What I mean by control is to resist, to resist, to hold back.
23:07 Q:Oneself or others?
23:09 K:Others, oneself, resist, hold back, restrain. I want to smoke and I mustn't, I mustn't overeat, I want to be sexual, I mustn't. You know, must and mustn't - you follow? - this battle going on all the time.
23:40 Q:I find myself controlling just this very instant, trying to think of what was said two minutes ago, trying to hold it, to keep this idea, to follow it, to pursue it.
23:54 Q:But if I understand why I mustn't smoke it becomes suddenly clear to me that I just don't smoke anymore. It's the understanding that does away with the resistance. I know for myself, I stopped smoking and it was unusual only because there was no resistance to stop.
24:34 Q:If I didn't control my children I would lose my job. Is that violent?
24:51 K:You see, you're now resisting the question, aren't you? I mean, if someone asks: why do you live this kind of life of constant control, what's the point of it?
25:17 Q:Then there is only control when there is a point, when there's a reason.
25:26 K:In that sense, yes. Yes.
25:42 Q:I must control myself and others in order to make them fit the images I have about how life should be, both for myself and others. As long as there are images in my head there bound to be control.
26:00 K:Sir, if I may suggest, don't let's answer the question immediately. See what is implied in it, sir, control - why one controls at all? Fear, the desire for security, facing something which I don't know, when I'm used to living a life always in the known, and I control because I want to be certain, clear, there's no contradiction, conflict, and so on, and on, and on. Now, perception of all that, the cause, the reason for control, would that clarify, help us to be free of controlling? Knowing the cause of control, will that free the mind from controls? Will the analysis of why we control help us to be free from control?
27:36 Q:I don't think so.
27:38 Q:Well, if you don't understand at all that you are controlled or why you are controlled I suppose you wouldn't even begin to be able to cope with it. On the other hand, I suppose that understanding could be superficial, where you could recount analytically, clearly why you're controlled and never somehow to tackle...
28:03 K:That's what I want to get at, sir.
28:09 Q:Aren't we looking at a fragment now?
28:15 K:Yes, one fragment says to the other fragment: I must control you. That's all. One fragment takes the superior position as the analyser, the censor, the controller and suppresses everything else, controls it, or rejects it, or goes beyond it, overcomes it, and so on, one fragment opposed to the other. This is what we call control.
28:52 Q:And analysing is often a means of control.
28:55 K:Yes, analysing is a means of control. Now, if one questions all that, that is, to find out a different way of living without this, how would you set about it?
30:02 Q:When I think of doing anything about it, it's more control.
30:14 Q:For one thing, by seeing all the time exactly what you are doing. If you're not controlling all the time then you see you're not controlling. If you are controlling then you see you are controlling, when you're aware of it.
30:29 Q:Wouldn't you have to experiment a little to see what the resistances are? You experiment by moving along, going along, then you will see where you are lost, by experimenting.
30:41 K:Sir, would you put it: I want to find out whether I can live in daily life without having any form of control. I want to find out, I want to live it, not verbally, not theoretically, but actually I want to live it. Now what am I to do? How do I set about it?
31:09 Q:Try it.
31:11 K:How do I try it? I'll try it. All right. How do I try it? Go on, sir, let's see. How do I try it?
31:21 Q:I would try and go along with whatever life brings me, in health, disease, in friendship, loss of friendship, to see what my resistances are.
31:30 K:Which means what?
31:34 Q:Does it mean there's a separation still?
31:36 K:No, sir. No, sir. Would I wait for environment or circumstances to bring about this freedom from control?
31:54 Q:Well, you don't have to wait, there's environment and circumstance right now. No waiting.
32:10 K:I want to live a life without control. First of all, I don't know what it means, because my life is all control and rejection, resistance. Now, how am I to find out? How am I to move, experiment? Experiment being test it out.
32:35 Q:It seems like the first thing to do is to start right now.
32:39 K:Yes, start right now. Let's start right now. What am I to do, sir? How am I to find the key to this, the movement of this? You follow? What am I to do?
33:06 Q:Well, every time we do something it implies we have an idea or a goal, like we don't know what it is to not control...
33:13 K:Do it, sir. Now I'm asking you. [Laughs] Find out how to live without control, now. Do it now, see what is meant by that. Never to have contradiction, which means control. Right? I want to smoke, I don't want to smoke. That's a very small affair, but I mean push that right through. That's our way of thinking - I want to go, I don't want to go. And all that implies control, resistance. Now I want to find a way of living which isn't at all that, because I see a life of that kind will inevitably stop freedom, will inevitably continue, bring about a constant battle with myself, within myself, with another, and so on, and on, and on. So I want to live a life in which there is no control at all. And would I do then anything I wanted? Then would I want anything? Which means dependence on somebody? Go on, sirs, I'm… Push it, let's do it together. I depend on you - wife, husband, society - I depend on you, psychologically, not, you know, obviously, postman and mail, the grocer, and so on - that's quite obvious. I depend on you, psychologically. And being dependent there is a sense of insecurity. That sense of insecurity, I want to ward off, resist, and my dependence grows deeper, more, and more, and more, and therefore my control of myself more, and more, and more, so I'm stuck there. So what shall I do?
37:27 Q:Sir? To ask, maybe not as a question, but to ask what it is that I'm depending on you for, what it is that I hope to…
37:53 K:Sir, all that is going to take time. That will take me many days. I don't want many days. I don't want to spend the next forty years saying why, why, why? Because that's such an awful waste of time. Whole analysis is a waste of time. Sorry, forgive me! [Laughter]
38:33 Q:It seems like time is important here.
38:36 K:This is it, sir, look. Control is time.
38:39 Q:Yes. It seems like it's focused on future time.
38:44 K:There it is, sir, do watch it, sir. Do watch it.
38:50 Q:In a certain sense, we… [inaudible]
38:55 K:No, I don't know. Don't assume anything, sir.
39:02 Q:I have it right now.
39:10 K:For myself I want to end control - you follow? - not through analysis because that doesn't bring it about, it has no meaning. So I say: what am I to do now to be free of control altogether?
39:32 Q:Sir, to be free of dependence.
39:38 K:That's only one part of it, sir, isn't it?
39:40 Q:A part.
39:49 K:I don't want a censor, me, the censor, who is always watching, operating - do this, don't do that, justifying, condemning, suppressing, controlling - you follow? - I want to kill that animal. [Laughs] Kill - you understand? - get rid of him, put him down the sewer, whatever you like.
40:26 Q:It sounds very violent.
40:29 K:[Laughs] It does but it isn't quite like that.
40:34 Q:May I suggest, you know, something that goes through my mind, that perhaps freedom might involve not only freedom from dependence but also freedom to depend, to be dependent. That is, so often people feeling unfree are afraid to love someone as a lover or as a friend because in loving them...
41:02 K:They get entangled, they get frightened, they get jealous, so they say, 'Please, I won't.' That's another form of resistance.
41:15 Q:Still, if I see things as they are, there's no time for control.
41:23 K:Why don't I see things as they are?
41:49 Q:It seems like that happens when I get caught up in how I want things to be, then I lose touch with what they are. Because the 'me' gets in the way.
42:11 K:Sir, you're giving a lot of explanations, if I may point out, but you're not out of it. You're giving me, to a hungry man, a description of what food is. Give me food, not description. I see clearly in myself the censor operating, the observer which says: do this, don't do that - control. Now, I can go on like that for the rest of my life, knowing what the censor is, the past, the sense of wanting to be secure, respectable or non-respectable, and so on, so on, so on. Now, I really want to find out a way of living in which the censor doesn't operate at all, and yet have complete order. Otherwise life is disorder - which it is now. Right? So, what? There must be order - you follow, sir? - complete order, because if there is disorder, then the necessity of a censor. It's the censor who has created disorder. So, what? I see that very clearly, the danger of a censor. And also I see the danger that without the censor there might be total disorder, doing anything one wants. And the total disorder will inevitably create another kind of censor, so I'm back again. And also I know how essential it is that there should be order in life. I mean order in the sense not a blueprint, imitation, conforming to a pattern - that's all silly. So these are the things involved. If - not 'if' - when there is complete security, would there be the need of a censor?
46:48 Q:I'm not sure I understand complete security.
46:51 K:My question.
46:53 Q:Complete security. What is complete security?
47:03 K:Does the censor arise because we are not secure - psychologically, physically, every way? We're not sane - let's put it that way. So sanity means total security.
47:44 Q:Does it?
47:48 K:I'm asking. I say yes. Sanity means total security, psychologically.
48:01 Q:Are you saying that or are you asking us?
48:03 K:I'm saying it. [Laughs] [Laughter]
48:08 Q:[Inaudible] …security in the past.
48:12 K:Look, sir, yes, sir, I am still saying the same thing.
48:20 Q:What do you mean total security?

K:What do I mean by total security?
48:25 Q:Is there such a thing?
48:29 K:I'm going to find out. Because the moment I'm completely sane there is no control. It's the neurotic that controls. Wait, let's go into it. Security. Our brain demands security, doesn't it? A brain can function efficiently, logically, sanely, when it's completely secure, safe.
49:28 Q:Safe psychologically?

K:Yes, safe psychologically.
49:32 Q:Why would a completely sane mind demand… If you think in terms of security… Why would a completely sane mind even think in terms of security?
49:44 K:Otherwise insecurity, being insecure, brings all these problems.
49:55 Q:Well, isn't there security in a belief?
49:59 K:Wait, look. Look what happens. The brain, mind, wanting security seeks security in a belief, in neuroticism, in an illusion, in a formula. Right? Because it demands security, it's trying to find it in things that have no security.
50:29 Q:Okay, can it know where to find security?
50:32 K:Wait, wait, we're going to find it, sir. Go at it!
50:36 Q:But does that demand spring from an innate, proper demand of the mind or a neurotic demand of the mind?
50:43 K:No it's a proper demand.

Q:Why is it?
50:46 K:I'll show it to you in a minute. You will follow it. Go into it! You'll find out yourself.
50:56 Q:Would you say that a total security would come from a complete lack of concern… a total inner security would come from a total lack of concern about security in relation to the outside world?
51:16 K:No, sir, no, sir, just look. Why do I seek security in a belief, in an opinion? Look, I do it, don't I? So it indicates the mind wanting security at any price. It seeks security in neurotic states. So the innate demand of the mind, psychologically, is to be completely secure. Otherwise no church would exist for a single minute, [laughs] nor the nationality, nor the class, nor the system, nor the belief, none of that would exist, if the brain, mind didn't seek all the time security, in relationship. Therefore it depends, and in that dependence, though there is pain, there is jealousy, there is anxiety, fear, apprehension, guilt, yet it tries to find in that, security. Right, sir?
52:51 Q:Isnt' it a cause of insecurity? The seeking for security itself is a cause of insecurity.
52:57 K:But therefore… I'm saying the mind demands security.
53:03 Q:Sir, that means it's insecure.
53:07 K:No, don't go to the opposite. We'll come to that. So how can you provide complete security? Otherwise all these acts are neurotic acts.
53:19 Q:I still don't see that it is necessary to provide complete security, because the mind demands a lot of things...
53:25 K:No, no, the mind demands a lot of silly things, but this is a basic thing.
53:33 Q:[Inaudible]...insecure at the root, then your mind is always in two places at once. It can see something and it's also trying to resolve that insecurity. You're looking at something and some relationship's gone wrong, you can't look at it completely, you're still trying to solve the other thing.
53:50 Q:Sir, why does the mind demand this security?
53:54 K:Why? Otherwise it can't function. It can't function efficiently, it can't be happy, it can't - you follow, sir? - joy…
54:06 Q:So the demand itself is not...
54:08 K:No, it is not a demand, it wants it, it is its food.
54:18 Q:Sir, isn't the confusion that we have identified security with certain states, or conditions, or ideas, or something? Therefore our whole notion of security is perverted.
54:32 K:Yes, sir, that's what we're saying, obviously. Sir, if you're not secure physically, where are you going to get your next meal, you'd be spending all the time searching for it. So you must have physical security. Right? So, mind also says: please give me security, I must have it to function. And therefore we go off into all kinds of illusory securities. So you see, the mind seeks security in things that are not secure.
55:34 Q:You think what, sir?

K:Not secure, not safe, not whole.
55:44 Q:Can the mind have security if you don't have physical security?
55:48 K:No, sir. No, sir. It is seeking security and trying to find some place somewhere where it can be safe - my wife, my house, my property, my God, my nation, my belief - you follow? - my neurotic states.
56:28 Q:Would you say that the security you're talking about is total freedom?
56:34 K:Yes, sir, in a certain sense, yes.
56:43 Q:Make sure that your needs are little. You are not easily threatened and you feel secure. Because you're not easily threatened because your needs are met.
56:59 K:Sir, it means, doesn't it really: we live in a world of uncertainty. I am uncertain of my wife, my job, my gods, my values, everything is changing, changing, changing. Either I accept complete change, movement - and that very movement is security.
57:34 Q:[Inaudible]
57:42 K:The basis, the fundamental demand of a mind is to function efficiently, sanely, happily, clearly - you follow, sir? And it will seek through uncertainty, certainty, and so on, and on, and on.
58:10 Q:Does that mean feeling the certainty right within the uncertainty?
58:17 K:Sir, when you say life is completely uncertain, that gives you a certain security.

Q:Yes.
58:32 Q:Are you saying then that total security is still insecurity?
58:36 K:Yes.
58:42 Q:Knowing there is no security is the approach?
58:46 K:Is security. [Laughs]
58:50 Q:Sir, I'm wondering while we're here, I'm not hearing the questions… [inaudible]
58:58 K:Sir, won't you get nearer, I don't know… [Several inaudible comments]
59:08 Q:May I?

K:Yes, sir, yes, sir.
59:10 Q:Go to my wife and sit next to her. [Laughter]
59:46 K:Security means to be in a state in which there is no choice at all.
1:00:06 Q:Because choice is the control.

K:Of course, choice is the devil. Go on, sir, go on.
1:00:29 Q:Security is settled. Because you say, one says, 'Right, no choice.' Then one says, 'I mean no choice in order to be psychologically secure.' Where are you going to draw that thick line between the choice of, for instance, the people whom one will see and the people who one won't see, the choice of the place where one will be and where one will not be, and the choice of security? They still seem to overlap.
1:01:04 K:Does this operate that way? Do you think in those terms of choice and no choice? No. Then why do you introduce it? Mind, the brain cells themselves, demand complete security - that's really very interesting to go into it, and find it - you follow? And therefore it's playing a trick upon itself all the time. One generation, it believes in God, next generation, it doesn't believe in God. One finds for God the substitute of the State, and so on, and on, and on, and on, playing tricks upon itself, caught in its… And which all indicates a mind that says, 'I must have security at any price, otherwise I can't function.' And why doesn't it have that security? Will it have that security if it sees belief, formulas, patterns have no security at all? Which means not depending psychologically on anything. Can the mind see that when it is anchored in a belief, in a dependence? I don't know if you're following what I am saying. I depend on my wife, psychologically. I can see why I depend on her because - that needn't be explained, it's fairly simple. Now, a mind that is so dependent, will it see the danger of that dependence? And see the total insecurity of that dependence? And the very seeing of it is the denying of it. Can the mind do that? Being caught in the trap, to see it is a trap and break.
1:04:27 Q:Not just that dependence but all dependence.
1:04:30 K:One is good… we'll take that.
1:04:31 Q:And then there might be twenty-five others.
1:04:33 K:I don't think there will be twenty-five others...
1:04:36 Q:The job, the children, the bank balance, the neighbours.
1:04:41 K:No, sir, no, no. No, that comes a little later. Those are all calculations afterwards.
1:04:54 Q:Why?
1:04:57 K:But I'm saying: once I see very clearly the nature and the structure of dependence, in which the mind has taken security, and sees the danger of it, sees in that there is no security at all, and therefore is free from dependence and therefore secure, in the sense we are talking about, then it will say, 'What shall I do with my wife?' Then follows the action. But before that, we want to know what will happen, in action. I don't know…
1:05:44 Q:No choice doesn't mean no action… [inaudible]
1:05:50 Q:Action only starts when there's no choice.
1:05:54 K:Oh, no, sir. I don't quite understand what you mean. I don't understand.
1:06:00 Q:You said the secure mind makes no choice, but it acts.
1:06:04 K:Obviously. A secure mind must act. But the action is not then a means of its own self-destruction, which it is now.
1:06:26 Q:I am trying to understand no choice. I came here today; I wanted to be here.
1:06:35 K:And you say I won't do this and I won't do that. Because you wanted to be here, you said I won't do this, I won't do that, I want…
1:06:44 Q:Well, there wasn't even a question of not coming.
1:06:46 K:Therefore, what's the...
1:06:49 Q:So it seems like, you know, thinking-wise there wasn't a choice but somehow, like my organism chose. Like all of me chose to be here rather than to be someplace else.
1:07:03 K:Did you choose between this and that? Choice implies this or that.
1:07:11 Q:No, thinking-wise there are many other alternatives, many other places I could be - but not for me.
1:07:22 K:Sir, let's leave - we'll come back to choice a little bit. This is really quite important, to see whether the mind can have this absolute sense of security. Therefore it can never go wrong - right? - therefore it has no choice. What shall I do? Because whatever it does is right. Sorry, this sounds dreadful! [Laughter] It's the neurotic mind that's always afraid of action. What is the right thing to do? Tell me what is right action, right way of thinking, right behaviour, right - you follow, sir? Which is all neuroticism. So can we… Let's go on. Shall we go on with this? Go on, sirs. Because this implies complete freedom, in which there is no control whatsoever. It's the communists who say to be free you must be disciplined - you know, all that business - therefore discipline yourself in order to be free. That's nonsense. I don't know if you're meeting all this.
1:09:18 Q:I feel a sense of… [inaudible] …a feeling for it.
1:09:26 K:No, sir, not accept. I mean, to have that, to have such a mind that is completely - you follow? - secure, protected, safe, sane, healthy, whole? [laughs] all these words.
1:10:36 Q:You are speaking strictly in the psychological sense. You are not speaking in any physical sense, where there may be a strange city and a neighbourhood where it isn't safe to go, and you maybe sign up and go, that's… [inaudible]
1:11:04 K:Choice implies a conflict, doesn't it, sir? Even there, why should there be conflict? I don't want to go to Los Angeles. That's the end of it. It's not a conflict of choice. I think this whole idea of freedom to choose has no meaning. So let's pursue this, sir. Please go into it. Let's see how this mind can be so completely secure, in the sense we are using, not… You see, because it is insecure it is violent. Choice is violence. Right? [Laughs] Of course, none of this can be accepted in the world, but, I mean, this is the truth. You see, to such a mind, space becomes tremendously important. No?
1:13:46 Q:[Inaudible]
1:13:48 K:Space. Space, sir, in the mind, to have space. How can a mind that is controlling, how can it ever have space? And therefore it's non-creative. I don't know if you want to go into all this.
1:14:12 Q:Because it is not free.
1:14:30 Q:The mind seeking security is always thinking in fixed, static things. When it stops thinking it sort of goes…
1:14:38 K:That's just it. Is there security per se, in itself, or security in things?
1:14:47 Q:Per se.
1:14:54 K:If there is security in something then I depend on that. You follow? And then the whole problem begins again. The mind in itself feeling completely secure - not in a quality, in a virtue, in capacity, in work, in action, in some form of social or ideological commitment, and so on. You understand this, sir?
1:15:42 Q:The mind is then moving. There is no choosing.
1:15:46 K:Now, how do we come upon such a mind, sir? Because unless this actually takes place then your discussion about it has no value. Because as we live now, it is disorder - right? - complete disorder. And the students, the young generation, throwing bricks, spitting on some people, and all the rest of it, is the demand for order, only they don't know what it means. And we are saying here that order is essential. And order means the understanding of disorder. The disorder is this finding security in things that will inevitably bring about disorder like nationality, class - you follow? - you know, all that stuff. Now, after explaining this, can the mind say now… look at this entirely and reject it totally? Not reject it as a choice but say, 'That's silly' - finished.
1:17:50 Q:I was wondering if you see that…
1:17:55 K:Seeing is… if you see the false - finished.
1:17:59 Q:I was wondering why I actually think I'm rejecting it… [inaudible]
1:18:06 K:I'm only using that as… Put it away, throw it out, it doesn't exist anymore. You see, that gives you tremendous vitality. I don't know… Because we are wasting our vitality, our energy in these insecure things.
1:18:36 Q:While you are thinking about them.
1:18:39 K:And therefore we have no energy for this.
1:19:48 Q:[Inaudible] …and one somehow reaches the state where one doesn't have a choice anymore. Could one, on a given day, look back and say what I did yesterday or a few months ago was a mistake, it wasn't right? I ask that because one way that you put it, when you said one doesn't have a choice in that state is [inaudible].
1:20:27 K:That's finished, sir, it's over. Why go back to it?
1:20:36 Q:You might regret it.
1:20:45 K:Sir, this is really extraordinary, tremendous value this - you follow? - what we're talking about. Let us get at it.
1:21:01 Q:But it does matter, I presume, very much what I'm going to do.
1:21:09 K:No. No. What you're going to do is not do-ing.
1:21:19 Q:You know, one of the things that led me to suggest that is that you said that one's being in a state where one doesn't have a choice leads to action, and I thought that the action that it led to was important, so that it was important what I do.
1:21:46 K:It's important what you do, or rather, the importance is not what you do but the state from which you are do-ing. I have found security in belief, and from that I act: America is the greatest, etc., or my religion, etc., my experience is the only thing that counts - and from that I act. And that leads to disaster, war. So, what is the action of a mind that's completely secure - you're asking. Is this what you're asking?

Q:No.
1:23:05 Q:He said: is the action is important?
1:23:08 K:No. Sorry. You didn't ask - I'm asking. Sorry, I'm asking.
1:23:19 Q:I take it from what you said that the answer might at least partly consist in saying that an action of one who is completely secure will… it won't too much matter what constitutes the action or what the consequences are.
1:23:41 K:No, the action then, sir, is total inaction in the sense of…
1:23:47 Q:…choice.
1:23:49 K:I wonder if you… Because, sir, my mind… the mind then is being completely secure. Whatever it does is action. Right? And therefore that action is not borne out of the censor. And therefore there's no choice. What he does at the moment is right. This is too dangerous unless you understand the whole of this.
1:24:37 Q:Because if one makes a choice and says the choice is right, then...
1:24:40 K:Then you're off!
1:24:45 Q:Whatever the choice, it's never right.
1:24:55 K:The whole religious idea, both in Asia and in Europe, and here naturally, is control, discipline, and eventually there you will sit next to God - you know the whole thing of it. And here we are saying, aren't we, that's a form of neuroticism in which the mind has found great security. Which is, it is living in an illusion which gives to it a form of security. But we see it as an illusion. And so I say to myself: am I living in an illusion? I am as long as I have any opinion, any judgment, any belief, any formula - I'm neurotic. Even if I depend on my own experience, I'm neurotic. [Laughs]
1:26:17 Q:I don't understand that.
1:26:21 K:Sir, what does experience mean? There are two meanings to it. Experience means to test, experiment and test. Experience also means to observe. And in the observation of the event or the thing that is taking place, learning from it is experience. Now, here someone is saying the mind needs complete security, and by observing the what is, the fact, the evidence, the event, it has learned a great deal, and experience is putting what it has learnt into test. All that implies experience, doesn't it? I've had an experience which has left some knowledge, and according to that knowledge I'm going to act. Which is putting that knowledge to test. Which means I am acting according to something that is past, dead. And therefore I'm seeking security in the past, which is knowledge. Look, sir, look, sir, I am seeking… mind is seeking security in knowledge, and knowledge is the past. So, that knowledge is always in conflict with the present. So I say no, I mustn't take security in the past, I must take security in the present. I'm lost. Security in the present is… I will live as… somehow - you follow?
1:29:18 Q:It seems as if what you are talking about is trusting the continuous flow of experience.
1:29:26 K:Not trust. If I may, I wouldn't use those words, 'trust.' Who is there to trust? Trust in what? And who is it says, 'I must trust'?
1:29:44 Q:Trust is expectation.
1:29:48 K:No, this is really quite extraordinary if you go into this. You see?
1:29:57 Q:[Inaudible]...doesn't the experience that you had before somehow get into your awareness of it? One has to think about it… …[inaudible]
1:30:07 K:No, because, look, sir, an event took place yesterday which has left a memory. That memory is my knowledge of that event. And according to that knowledge I'm going to act, or according to that knowledge I want more of it. Right?
1:30:33 Q:[Inaudible]

K:No, no, see… Therefore I'm living in the past, and that is deadly! And therefore I'm living in the past as a means of security. Ah, see the beauty of it, sir.
1:30:54 Q:You can totally drop that...

K:How can I drop it?
1:30:59 Q:You're not interested. It happened yesterday.
1:31:02 K:Wait, sir. Can the mind, as the event takes place, learn all about it, test it out, finish it? Not now finish it, finish it then.
1:31:16 Q:The next time when you approach a situation…
1:31:18 K:No, don't say 'next time' - you're missing… Then you're already planning, which is going to act. Your plan is going to act, not the event is going to act.
1:31:35 Q:You then experience… [inaudible]
1:31:39 K:No! Experience - we said this, sir - experience implies observation of what is, which is an event, an action, learning from it, which becomes the knowledge. That knowledge, according to that knowledge, we act. See what happens. There's a contradiction between the past and the present. So action is always in the past, or according to the past. So, not knowing that such action brings disaster, conflict, mind takes security in the past. Now, if I see that, see it, understand, see the truth of it, feel it, taste it, smell it, you know...
1:32:42 Q:When you reject it, isn't your mind…
1:32:43 K:It is finished!
1:32:45 Q:But the mind is more sensitive then because you rejected it.
1:32:47 K:No, mind has become sensitive because it has observed, not because it has experienced.
1:32:54 Q:No, because you have observed it. It is a result of that experience.
1:32:57 K:No, I won't - sorry. It is not a result. Therefore I am observing all the time.
1:33:25 Q:Sir, in that observation, I would not be ready to come to… [inaudible] whole idea of security is illusion… [inaudible] there is no security, and that is the security… [inaudible]
1:33:48 K:Sir, we mean observation, a mind that is awake, that observes. And in that there is no security, observation is no security The mind can then say: in observation there is security. Which is, again, the mind is taking security, protection, safety, in observing rightly, and so on.
1:34:19 Q:Is that the same error?

K:Of course, it is.
1:34:25 Q:Sir, is there a difference between observing and experiencing?
1:34:33 K:It all depends what you call experience and observation. You can see it, sir. Let's look at it. I don't know - we'll find out. We said experience is something to be tested, something that must be tested. And also it means to observe the event, the occurrence, the what is, and learn from that, or accumulate knowledge from that. I realise… I observe the precipice - see how difficult this is - I observe the precipice, the danger of it, the experience of it, which is the testing of it, and I go away from the precipice. Right? That is an experience - the whole of it - the seeing of it, the testing of it, the learning the danger of it, which has become my knowledge, and therefore I won't go near a precipice, therefore I go away from it. All that is experience. Right?
1:35:55 Q:I'm playing it up against something that I…
1:35:58 K:See what has happened. Next time I meet a precipice, my conditioning, learning, I say, 'Don't go near - danger.' Right? Now, in that, memory of that, is secure now - in that there is great is security - I know. Snakes are dangerous, certain animals are dangerous, precipices are dangerous, and so on, so on. Now, here, mind is also seeking security, in experience, which is knowledge, which is the past. See the… I must have physical security of the precipice, and see the dangers of psychological security. You follow, sir? Right? Which means the mind has become so intelligent it says it must be there, it must not be here. You follow? There is not a contradiction.
1:37:24 Q:That sounds very important but I didn't understand it. Could you come again?
1:37:34 K:I'll put it differently, sir. Let's try it. Sir, what is intelligence? Let us approach it differently, that's all. What is intelligence?
1:37:55 Q:Are you asking me?

K:I am asking. What is intelligence?
1:37:59 Q:Well, I suppose…

K:Is it knowledge?
1:38:03 Q:No.
1:38:04 K:Is it refinement of knowledge, the more, more knowledge? You follow? Or is it a capacity? Wait. Don't agree. We'll go into it. Just explore it. Is it a capacity? Is it something that you accumulate? Is it something that is cultured, bit by bit, bit by bit - cultured, grown? Or is it a state of mind, a quality of mind that is sensitive to danger, to every form of danger - right? - not only physical danger - eating some food which disagrees with you and you keep on eating - which is lack of intelligence and then taking a pill after in order to get rid of that pain, but - you follow? - keeping that, that is total lack of intelligence. Seeing the danger of a precipice, that is intelligence. The danger of it. Now, the danger of a belief is intelligence. Right?
1:39:43 Q:Seeing the danger.

K:Seeing the danger of it. So, intelligence says I must have security… there is danger here and also there is danger there. Right? So intelligence is watching. And intelligence observes. In the observation, it experiences. And we mean by experience what we said just now, which is to test it in action. Which is to observe an event or actually what is going on, and see what is going on and not let it accumulate as knowledge and therefore in that knowledge take security and act from that knowledge. I mean, a man who acts from that knowledge is not balanced. A man who lives in the past and acts in the present with the past is unbalanced. I don't know if you…
1:41:09 Q:I see in that too there is no choice. I haven't seen that before. But there is no choice. Like, when I was trying to understand the two experiences, the experience of the precipice and the experience of psychological memory and pleasure, and all that...

K:Which is a danger.
1:41:23 Q:Here it just action - you just don't do this and you do something else, but there is not a choice there.
1:41:26 K:No, no, no. Have I made, sir…? So, intelligence is the highest form of sensitivity, and that is complete… an intelligent mind is completely protected mind. Right? Right, sir?
1:42:37 Q:It is protected in the sense that we have never seen protection before - there is no barrier there. It is not protected with a fence around it.
1:42:42 K:No, no, no, no.
1:42:49 Q:Sir? In coming to this security, perception, could…[inaudible] to see the fact that there is no security.
1:43:13 K:Sir, either you see the fact with the past or you see the fact as it is now. If you look at it with the eyes of the past then there is choice, repression, control, conflict, dependence - all the rest of it follows. To see that one is angry, that there is anger - see how complex that is too - to see it without the word. Because the word is of the past. To name that feeling as anger is the conditioned response of the past. So to look at it non-verbally. Try it, do it, you will see. What extraordinary intelligence, which is its own discipline, is involved in that one little thing.
1:44:36 Q:You see it viscerally.

K:[Laughs] Sir, is it time to stop? It is time, isn't it.
1:45:04 Q:Ten to six.
1:45:06 K:Oh! May I just finish this thing? We live in a certain centre. From a certain centre we live, act, think, feel. Right? This centre is this centre of choice. Right? This centre is repression, control, violence, all the rest of it. That is that centre. To move away from that centre completely to a different space and dimension is what we are trying to do. Right? To move from this to that is not act of determination. If there is determination then there is choice. See how difficult… You follow, sir? So, can I see this centre, can the mind see the centre for itself, without any past interfering with it? Which is to look at it without the whole structure of thought coming into it. Thought is the past therefore it is the censor. If the mind sees that, you are already…
1:46:48 Right, sir, we had better stop. Tomorrow at 11 we will…