Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ49T11 - Why do we want to dominate or be subservient to another?
Ojai, California - 20 August 1949
Public Talk 11



0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s 11th public talk in Ojai, California, 1949.
0:08 Krishnamurti: We have been discussing for the past several weeks the problem of understanding oneself.
0:22 Because the more one thinks about the many conflicting and ever-increasing problems of life, private and social, one sees that unless there is a fundamental, radical transformation within oneself, obviously it is not possible to deal with the many problems that confront each one of us.
0:56 So it is essential, is it not, to resolve any of these problems of our life, one must tackle them oneself directly, be in relationship with it, and not merely rely on specialists, experts, or religious leaders, or political givers of panacea.
1:23 And it is becoming more and more difficult as our life, as our culture and civilization is getting more and more complicated, to deal with the ever-increasing problems directly.
1:38 And it seems to me that one of the problems, amongst others, which most of us have not very deeply and fundamentally faced, is this question of domination and submission.
1:59 And if I may, I would like to discuss that rather briefly and succinctly before I answer the questions this double-sided nature of domination.
2:19 Why is it that we dominate, consciously or unconsciously - man and woman, and the woman and the man… the woman, and so on, the domination in different ways, not only in the private life but also this whole tendency of the governments to dominate?
2:59 Why is there this spirit of domination going on constantly, from period to period? Only very few seem to escape from it. Can we think of it in a different sense, that is, can we understand it without going to the opposite?
3:19 Because the moment we recognize, we are aware of this problem of domination, we at once begin to submit, or we think in terms of the opposite, as submission.
3:40 Can we not think without the opposite and look at the problem directly?
3:47 And perhaps we shall be able then to understand this whole complex problem of domination, seeking power over another, or submitting oneself.
3:58 After all, submission is another form of domination.
4:06 To submit oneself to another, whether it be a man or a woman, is the negative form of domination.
4:22 By the very denial of domination one becomes submissive, and I do not think we shall be able to solve this problem in thinking in terms of the opposites.
4:37 So let us go into it and see why it exists. First of all, one must be aware, must one not, the obvious, crude form of domination, of which most of us are aware if we are at all alert.
5:01 But there is the unconscious domination of which most of us are unaware.
5:12 That is, this unconscious desire to dominate takes the guise or the cloak of service, of love, of being kind and so on.
5:33 The unconscious desire to dominate exists under different forms, and I think that’s much more important to understand than merely try to regulate the superficial domination of one or the other.
5:49 Now, why is it that we unconsciously want to dominate?
6:09 Probably most of us are unaware that we dominate at different levels - not only merely in the family level, but at the verbal level, and also this inward desire to seek power, to seek success, which are all indication of domination.
6:44 Why? Why do we want to dominate another, or be subservient to another? If one deliberately, consciously, put that question to oneself, what would be the response?
7:21 Most of us wouldn’t know why we want to dominate.
7:31 First of all, there is in it the sensation of dominating somebody, the unconscious pleasure which gradually becomes the contrary.
7:50 Is that the only motive we want to dominate? Surely that’s part of it, but there is much more to it, much deeper significance.
8:15 I wonder if each one of us has ever watched oneself in relationship, either as a man or the woman, dominating.
8:31 And if we are conscious of it, what’s the response, what is our reaction?
8:38 And, obviously, why shouldn’t we dominate? And in relationship, which is life, do we understand through domination?
8:59 If I dominate you, or you dominate me in relationship, do we understand each other?
9:07 After all, that is life, isn’t it, relationship is life, relationship is action.
9:19 And if I merely live in self-enclosing action of domination, is there any relationship? Is not domination a process of isolation, which denies relationship?
9:40 And is not that what I’m seeking?
9:50 In domination… is not domination a process of isolation in relationship?
10:05 And can there be relationship between two people if there is any sense of domination or submissiveness?
10:22 And as life is relationship - one cannot live in isolation - is not our purpose unconsciously to isolate ourselves within the cloak… within that feeling of aggressive assertiveness, the domination?
10:46 So is not the process of domineering a process of isolation, which most of us want?
11:01 Most of us sedulously cultivate it.
11:11 Because to be open in relationship is very painful, needs extraordinary intelligence and adaptability, quickness, understanding; and when that is not, we try to isolate ourselves.
11:29 And is not the process of domination a process of isolation?
11:38 Obviously it is. It’s a process of self-enclosure.
11:47 And when I’m enclosed, encased in my own opinion and my own desires and my own ambitions and my own desire to dominate, am I related?
11:58 And if there is no relationship, how is existence possible?
12:09 And therefore is there not friction and therefore sorrow?
12:17 So our unconscious desire in relationship is not to be hurt, is a search for security, a refuge.
12:36 And that is thwarted when there is no fulfilment; then I begin to isolate myself.
12:47 And one of the processes of isolation is domination.
12:58 And that spirit of… and that fear of isolation takes another form also, does it not?
13:08 It’s not only the desire to assert, to dominate, or be submissive, but also is there not in this process of isolation the consciousness of being alone, being lonely?
13:28 After all, most of us are alone, lonely - I won’t use the word alone; that’s a different sense.
13:41 Most of us are isolated; we live in our own world.
13:50 Though we may be related, though we may be married and have children, we live in a world of our own.
14:05 And that’s a very lonely world; it’s a sorrowful world, with an occasional opening of joy and amusement, happiness and so on, but it’s a solitary world.
14:31 And to escape from that we try to be something, we try to assert, we try to dominate.
14:45 And hence, in order to escape from what we are, domination becomes a means through which we can take flight from ourselves.
15:07 So this whole process, does it not take place when there is not only the desire not to face the thing that which we are, but also does it not come into being when there is a process of isolation going on?
15:45 And if we can look at it, this process, not in any condemnatory spirit, which is merely taking the opposite side, but to understand it, to understand why we dominate, why…
16:06 the extraordinary desire to dominate, or become very subservient. If we can be aware of it without any sense of taking the opposite side, but merely look at it, I think we’ll really experience that state of isolation from which we are trying to run away, and then we shall be able to solve it.
16:42 That is, if we understand something, we are free of it. It’s only when we do not understand, there is fear.
16:58 So can we look at this problem without condemnation? Merely observe it, silently watch it, the process at work within ourselves, which can be observed very easily when you are talking at table, in relationships of different kind, just to be… silently watch the whole phenomenon unfold itself.
17:49 Then you will see that because there is no condemnation, no justification for your domination, then it begins to unfold; there is no hindrance.
18:12 Then you’ll begin to see the whole implications, not only the private domination but the public domination, the domination of various groups by another group, by one country over another country, one ideology over another ideology and so on.
18:37 Because, as self-knowledge is essential for any kind of understanding, and when you approach it rightly, and as our relationship is life and without relationship there can be no existence, then you begin to see this process of domination expressing itself in so many ways.
19:09 And when you consciously as well as unconsciously understand this whole process, there is a freedom from it.
19:17 Surely there must be freedom, and then only is there a possibility of going beyond.
19:24 Because a thought that is merely dominant, tethered to a particular form of belief, particular opinion, assertive, cannot go… cannot take a long journey, cannot soar.
19:51 And so it is… is it not essential in understanding oneself to understand one of the… one of this most difficult and complex problem of domination, which takes such subtle form?
20:16 And when it takes a righteous form, it becomes very obstinate.
20:29 And the unconscious desire to serve, with the desire to dominate, is much more difficult to deal with.
20:46 And can there be love when there is domination?
21:08 And can you think of yourself in relationship to something which you say you love and yet dominate?
21:20 Then surely you are merely using, and what is used, in that there is no relationship, is there?
21:29 So to understand this problem one has to be sensitive to this whole question.
21:41 Not that you should not dominate or be submissive, but to be aware of this whole problem.
21:50 And to be aware one must approach it without any condemnation, not taking sides.
21:59 And it’s a very difficult thing to do because most of us are trained to condemn.
22:06 And we condemn because we think we understand it. We don’t. Moment we condemn, we stop understanding. That is one of the easiest ways of brushing things aside - to condemn somebody, or yourself.
22:24 But to understand this whole process requires great alertness of mind; and a mind is not alert when it is condemning or justifying, or merely identifying itself with what it sees.
22:53 So self-knowledge is a constant discovery from moment to moment, and that discovery is denied if the past merely throws up an opinion, a barrier.
23:21 The cumulative spirit of understanding, of accumulation, prevents the immediate understanding.
23:28 I have several questions and before I answer them, may I say that those of you who are taking notes shouldn’t do so.
24:01 I’ll explain why. I am talking to an individual, to you, not to some group. You and I together are experiencing something. You’re not taking notes of what I’m saying; you are experiencing.
24:23 We are going together on a journey. And if you’re merely concerned with taking down notes, you’re not really listening. You may take it down in order to think it over, you will say, or taking it down to tell some of your friends who are not here, but surely that is not important, is it?
24:48 What is important is that you and I understand, and to understand you must give your full attention.
25:00 And how can you give your full attention when you’re taking notes? Please see the importance of this and naturally you’ll abstain from taking notes.
25:18 You don’t have to be compelled, you don’t have to be told, because what is important in these meetings is not so much the words but the content behind, the psychological implications, which always overcome, dominate.
25:53 And you cannot understand those unless you give your full attention, your conscious attention.
26:04 1ST QUESTIO

N: Is not the experience of the past a help towards freedom and right action in the present?
26:16 Cannot knowledge be a liberating factor and not a hindrance? Is not the experience of the past a help towards freedom and right action in the present? Cannot knowledge be a liberating factor and not a hindrance?
26:42 Do we understand the present through the past? Do we understand something through accumulation of experiences? Now, what do we mean by knowledge? What do we mean by the accumulation of experiences which gives you understanding?
27:05 What do we mean by that? What do we mean by knowledge and what do we mean by the past experience?
27:16 Let’s go into it a little bit, because it’s very important whether the past, which is the accumulation of your memories of incidents, of experiences, will they give understanding of an experience in the present?
27:54 Now, what happens when there is an experience?
28:02 What is the process of it?
28:09 What is an experience? A challenge and a response, is it not? That’s what we call experience.
28:25 Now, the challenge must always be new, otherwise it’s not a challenge.
28:35 And to meet it adequately, fully, completely, if I respond according to my past conditioning, do I understand it?
29:08 After all, life is a process of challenge and response.
29:18 That’s the constant process. And there is friction between challenge and response when the response is inadequate: sorrow, pain.
29:36 And when the response is equal to the challenge, then there is harmony, then there is integration between challenge and response.
29:53 Now, my response to a challenge, if it is based on the various experiences of the past, can such a response be adequate?
30:11 Meet the challenge on the same level.
30:19 And what is the response? The response is the outcome of the accumulation of various experiences; the memory, the sensation of various experiences; not the experience but the memory and the sensation of the experience.
30:59 And therefore sensation meets the challenge, memory meets the challenge, and that’s what we call accumulated knowledge, don’t we?
31:21 Therefore knowledge is always the known, the past, the conditioned.
31:30 The conditioned meets the unconditioned, the challenge, and therefore there is no relationship between the two.
31:48 Then you translate the challenge according to the conditioned mind, conditioned responses, and is that not a hindrance?
32:01 So how can one meet the challenge adequately is the question.
32:14 If I meet it with my past experiences, I can see very well that it is not adequate.
32:34 And my mind is the past; my thought is the result of the past.
32:42 So can thought meet the challenge? Thought the outcome of knowledge, the result of various experiences, and so on. So can thought meet the challenge? As thought is conditioned, how can it meet it?
33:07 It can meet it partially, therefore inadequately, therefore friction, therefore pain, and all the rest of it.
33:15 So there is a different process of meeting the challenge, is there not?
33:30 And what is that process? What is that thing? That’s what’s implied in this question. First of all, one must see the challenge must be new, is always new, otherwise it’s not a challenge.
33:48 A problem is always a new problem because it’s varying from moment to moment.
33:55 If it does not, it’s not a problem, it’s static.
34:04 So if the challenge is new, then the mind must be new, then it must come to it afresh and not burdened by the past.
34:17 But the mind is the past, therefore the mind must become silent.
34:26 We do this instinctively, almost without thought, when the problem is very great, when the problem is new; and obviously new, the mind becomes silent.
34:45 It’s no longer chattering, no longer burdened by its accumulated knowledge.
34:57 Then with that newness it responds and therefore there is a comprehension of the challenge.
35:06 Surely that’s how all creativeness takes place.
35:20 Creation or that sense of creativeness is from moment to moment, it has no accumulation. You may have the technique of the expression of that creativeness, but that sense of creativeness comes into being only when the mind is absolutely quiet, no longer burdened by the past, the innumerable experiences, sensations it has gathered.
36:04 So the adequacy of the response to the challenge depends not on knowledge, not on the previous memories, but on its newness, freshness.
36:23 And that freshness is denied, that quality of renewal is denied when there is a continuity of accumulated experience, therefore there must be an ending to each minute, a death to each minute.
36:48 Please, perhaps some of you might feel it’s all very well to talk like this.
37:03 But if you really experimented with this you will see how extraordinary, how quickly one understands the challenge, how profoundly you are related to the challenge and not merely responding to a challenge.
37:37 Surely one understands anything only when the mind is capable of renewing itself by being new, fresh; not open; then it’s like a sieve.
37:53 And as our problems are always new - sorrow is always new if it is real sorrow, not merely the memory of something else.
38:21 To understand it you must approach it afresh; you must have a fresh mind.
38:30 And therefore knowledge as accumulation of experiences, individual or collective, such knowledge is an impediment to understanding.
38:44 2ND QUESTIO

N: Is my believing in the now well-authenticated fact of survival after death a hindrance to liberation through self-knowledge?
39:07 Is it not essential to distinguish between belief based on objective evidence, and belief arising from inner psychological states?
39:16 Is my believing in the now well-authenticated fact of survival after death a hindrance to liberation through self-knowledge?
39:30 Is it not essential to distinguish between belief based on objective evidence, and belief arising from inner psychological states?
39:42 Surely what is important, not if there is continuity after death or if there is not, but why do we believe?
40:02 What is the psychological state that demands this belief in something?
40:10 We’re not disputing now whether there is life after death. Please let’s be very clear. That’s another question; we can deal with it afterwards, another time.
40:29 But what is the compulsion in me, the psychological necessity, to believe is the question. And if it is a fact does not demand a belief, surely.
40:48 The sun sets, the sun rises - that does not demand a belief.
41:04 A fact does not demand, on your part, a belief, does it?
41:11 Belief arises only when you want to translate the fact according to your desires, to your psychological states, to suit your particular prejudices, vanities, idiosyncrasies.
41:30 So what is important is how you approach the fact, whether the fact of life after death or any other fact.
41:50 So the question is not whether there is continuity of the individual after death, after his body dies, but why you believe.
42:04 What is the psychological urge to believe? Surely that’s clear, is it not? So let’s investigate whether that psychological belief is not a hindrance to understanding.
42:36 If it is a fact, there is nothing more to be said about it - it’s a fact, as the sun sets.
42:51 But the problem is why there is this incessant urge in me to believe in something: believe in God, believe in an ideology, believe in the future Utopia, believe in something or other.
43:16 Why? Why do we believe? Why this psychological urge to believe?
43:27 What would happen if we did not believe? If we merely looked at facts - can we?
43:38 It becomes almost impossible, does it not, because we want to translate facts according to our sensations.
43:55 So beliefs become sensations which intercede between the fact and myself.
44:11 So belief becomes a hindrance.
44:19 And yet why do we believe, why have these…? Are we different from our beliefs? Do you believe that you are an American, or that you are a Hindu, you believe in this and that, or reincarnation - dozens of things.
44:47 You are that, are you not?
44:55 You are what you believe.
45:02 And why do you believe? Which doesn’t mean that I am being atheistic, or denying God, and all that stupidity - we’re not discussing that.
45:21 Reality has nothing to do with belief. So, the problem is why do we believe?
45:36 Why the psychological necessity, the investment in belief?
45:44 Is it not because without belief you are nothing? Without the passport, what are you?
45:58 Without labelling yourself as something, what are you?
46:09 If you did not believe in reincarnation, if you did not call yourself this or that, if you had no labels, what are you?
46:26 Therefore belief acts as a label, an identifying card; and remove the card, where are you?
46:39 Is it not that basic fear, the sense of being lost that necessitates belief?
46:49 Please, think it over, don’t reject it.
47:00 Please let us experience together the things that one is talking about, not merely listen and go away and carry on with our usual beliefs and non-beliefs.
47:16 We are discussing the whole problem of believing. So belief, the word, has become important; the label has become important.
47:36 If I did not call myself a Hindu, with all its implications, I’d be lost, I would have no identity.
47:51 But identifying myself with India, as a Hindu, it gives me tremendous prestige; it places me, it fixes me, it gives me a value.
48:07 So belief becomes a necessity when I am psychologically, consciously or unconsciously, aware that without the label I am lost.
48:21 Therefore the label becomes important, not what I am but the label: the Christian, the Buddhist, the Hindu.
48:40 And we try then to live according to those beliefs, which are self-projected, therefore unreal. Surely the man who believes in God, his God is self-projected God, is home-made God; but the man who does not believe in God is still the same.
49:14 But to understand what that is, that supreme something, we must come to it afresh, anew, not tethered to a belief.
49:31 And I think that is our difficulty, socially, economically, politically, our individual relationship - we approach all these problems with a prejudice.
49:48 And as these problems are vital, living, they can only be met adequately when the mind is new, not tethered to some self-projected, home-made belief.
50:14 So belief becomes a hindrance, obviously, when the desire for belief is not understood.
50:33 And when it is understood there is no question of belief; then you are able to face facts as they are.
50:44 Even then, if there is continuity after death, does the problem of living in the present solve it?
50:51 If I know that I’m going to live after this thing dies, have I understood life, which is now, not tomorrow?
51:04 And to understand the present, do I have to believe?
51:15 Surely to understand the present, which is living, not merely time, a period, I must have a mind that is capable of completely meeting that present, giving it full attention.
51:32 But if my attention is distracted by a belief, surely there is no meeting of the present completely, fully.
51:50 So belief becomes a hindrance to the understanding of reality. As reality is the unknown and the belief is the known, how can the known meet the unknown?
52:15 But our difficulty is we want the unknown with the known.
52:28 We don’t want to let go the known, because it’s too frightening, great insecurity, uncertainty.
52:44 And that’s why we hedge about ourselves with beliefs, to safeguard ourselves.
52:51 It’s only in the state of uncertainty, insecurity, in which there is no sense of refuge that you discover.
53:04 That’s why you must be lost in order to find. But we don’t want to be lost.
53:20 And to prevent ourselves from getting lost, we have home-made beliefs and gods which protect us.
53:30 And when the moment of real crisis comes, these gods and beliefs have no value, and hence beliefs are an impediment to him who really wants to find out.
54:02 3RD QUESTIO

N: Why is it, in spite of all that you have said against authority, certain individuals identify themselves with you or with your state of being and thereby gain authority for themselves?
54:22 How can the inexperienced prevent themselves from being caught in the net of these individuals? (Laughter) Why is it, in spite of all that you have said against authority, certain individuals identify themselves with you or with your state of being and thereby gain authority for themselves?
54:44 How can the inexperienced prevent themselves from being caught in the net of these individuals?
54:53 Sir, this is quite an important question because this desire to identify ourselves with something underlies this question.
55:11 First of all, why do you want to identify with me, or my state of being, or whatever it is?
55:24 How do you know it? Because I happen to talk, or I happen to have a name?
55:46 Surely you are identifying yourself with something which you have projected. You’re not identifying with something that is alive.
56:02 You are identifying something which is self-created, and you give it a label, and that label happens to be well known, or known by the few, and that gives you prestige, this identification; and then you can exploit people.
56:27 You know, by calling yourself a friend of somebody, or a disciple of somebody, it’s a reflected glory.
56:43 Go all the way to India to find your God or your master, and then identify yourself with that particular cult or particular idea, that gives you a certain boost.
57:02 And then the people around you, you can exploit. It is such a stupid process. That gives you a sense of authority, power, that you are the one person that understands; everybody else doesn’t understand; that you are the nearest disciple, are, the…
57:23 - you know? - the various forms which we use in order to exploit the blind.
57:31 So the first thing to understand is the desire to exploit people, which means, the desire to have for yourself power, position, prestige.
57:50 And as everybody wants that, the inexperienced as well as the experienced, everybody is caught mutually in the net, because we all want to exploit somebody.
58:15 We don’t put it so brutally but cover it up with soft words.
58:31 And as all of us depend on another for our not only physical necessities but on psychological necessities, we use others.
59:01 If I used you in order to express myself at these meetings, you would like it much more, and I would feel gratified, and we’d be mutually exploiting each other, surely.
59:20 But such a process denies the search for truth, search for reality.
59:36 You cannot prevent the inexperienced from being caught in the net of these so-called individuals who understand, who are the nearest.
59:51 Because perhaps you yourself may be caught in it, because we do not want to be free from all identification.
1:00:10 Surely truth has nothing to do with any individual, or does not depend on the interpretation of the individual.
1:00:21 You have to experience it directly, not through somebody. And it is not a matter of sensation, not a matter of belief, but if we are caught in sensation and belief, then you will use others.
1:00:48 So if one is really seeking, honestly, directly, truth, then there is no question of exploiting anybody.
1:01:10 But that requires a great deal of honesty; that entails an aloneness, which can only be understood when one has been through loneliness, and go into it fully, completely.
1:01:42 And as most of us do not want to go through the pain, the sorrow, the whole complications of our psychological states, we are distracted by these exploiters.
1:01:54 And we like to be exploited, because it requires a great deal of patience, of understanding, of freedom, of no identification with anything, to understand, to grasp the full significance of reality.