Krishnamurti Subtitles

Roots of psychological disorder

Ojai - 16 April 1982

Discussion with Scientists 1



0:05 The Nature of the Mind
 
0:19 Part One
 
0:23 The Roots of
Psychological Disorder
  
0:37 This is one of a series of
dialogues between J Krishnamurti,
  
0:41 David Bohm, Rupert
Sheldrake, and John Hidley.
  
0:44 The purpose of these discussions
is to explore essential questions
  
0:48 about the mind, what is
psychological disorder,
  
0:51 and what is required for
fundamental psychological change?
  
0:57 J Krishnamurti is a religious
philosopher, author, and educator,
  
1:01 who has written and given lectures
on these subjects for many years.
  
1:05 He has founded elementary
and secondary schools
  
1:07 in the United States,
England, and India.
  
1:10 David Bohm is professor
of theoretical physics
  
1:14 at Birkbeck College,
London University in England.
  
1:17 He has written
numerous books
  
1:19 concerning theoretical physics
and the nature of consciousness.
  
1:22 Professor Bohm and
Mr. Krishnamurti have held
  
1:24 previous dialogues
on many subjects.
  
1:27 Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist,
whose recently published book
  
1:31 proposes that learning in
some members of a species
  
1:35 affects the
species as a whole.
  
1:37 Dr. Sheldrake is presently
consulting plant physiologist
  
1:41 to the International Crops Research
Institute in Hyderabad, India.
  
1:46 John Hidley is a psychiatrist
in private practice,
  
1:48 who has been associated
with the Krishnamurti school
  
1:51 in Ojai, California,
for the past six years.
  
1:55 In the culture there are
conflicting points of view
  
1:58 about the proper approach
to dealing with one's own
  
2:01 or others' psychological
problems.
  
2:04 And the underlying principles from
which these approaches are drawn
  
2:07 are in even
greater conflict.
  
2:10 Without invoking a narrow
or specialised point of view,
  
2:14 can the mind, the
nature of consciousness,
  
2:17 its relationship
to human suffering,
  
2:19 and the potential
for change be understood?
  
2:23 These are the issues to be
explored in these dialogues.
  
2:28 K: Is disorder the very
nature of the self?
  
2:40 H: Why do you say that?
 
2:42 Why do you ask that,
if it is the nature of the self?
  
2:44 K: Isn't the self,
the me, the ego,
  
2:48 whatever word we like to use,
isn't that divisive?
  
2:55 Isn't that exclusive,
isolating process,
  
3:00 the self-centred activity, which causes
so much disorder in the world,
  
3:05 isn't that the origin,
the beginning of all disorder?
  
3:10 H: The origin being
selfish activity.
  
3:13 K: Yes, self-centred activity,
at all levels of life.
  
3:17 H: Yes, and certainly that's the
way, in which the patient comes in,
  
3:21 he's concerned
about his depression.
  
3:22 K: Yes.
H: Or his fear.
  
3:24 K: His fulfilment,
his joy, his suffering,
  
3:27 his agony, and so on,
it's all self-centred.
  
3:31 H: Yes.
K: So, I am asking, if I may,
  
3:34 is not the self the
beginning of all disorder?
  
3:41 The self - I mean the egotistic
attitude towards life,
  
3:47 the sense of individual,
emphasis on the individual,
  
3:53 his salvation,
his fulfilment,
  
3:55 his happiness,
his anxiety, and so on.
  
4:01 H: Well, I don't know that
it's the source of the thing.
  
4:05 It's certainly the way
he experiences it and presents it.
  
4:09 He presents it as his.
 
4:11 K: Yes, but I mean, if you
go all over the world,
  
4:15 it is the same expression,
it is the same way of living.
  
4:21 They are all living
their own personal lives,
  
4:25 unrelated to another,
 
4:29 though they may be married,
they may do all kinds of things,
  
4:32 but they're really functioning
from an isolated centre.
  
4:39 H: And that centre,
that self,
  
4:43 is the source of the
difficulty in the relationship?
  
4:46 K: In relationship.
 
4:47 H: And the difficulty
that creates the symptoms.
  
4:52 K: And I wonder, if the psychologists
have tackled that problem,
  
4:59 that the self is the origin,
the beginning of all contradiction,
  
5:05 divisive activity,
self-centred activity, and so on.
  
5:11 H: No. I think that the way
psychiatrists and psychologists
  
5:15 look at this is that the problem
is to have an adequate self.
  
5:21 K: Adequate self.
H: Yes.
  
5:23 K: Which means what?
 
5:26 H: Defining normality...
 
5:28 K: The self that is functioning...
H: Sufficiently.
  
5:31 K: ...efficiently.
H: Yes.
  
5:33 K: Which means furthering
more misery.
  
5:41 B: Well, I don't feel
that the psychiatrists
  
5:43 would necessarily agree
with you on that last point,
  
5:46 they might feel that a proper,
or properly organised self
  
5:50 could get together with other
properly organised selves
  
5:52 and make an orderly society.
K: Yes.
  
5:54 B: And you are saying,
as I understand it,
  
5:56 something quite different.
K: Yes.
  
5:58 B: Which is that
no self can do it.
  
6:02 No structure of the self
can make order.
  
6:04 K: That's right. The very
nature of the self
  
6:10 must intrinsically
bring disorder.
  
6:15 B: Yes, but I'm not
sure this will be clear.
  
6:20 How can that be
made clear, evident?
  
6:27 S: Sorry, it seems to me that
the context is even broader
  
6:30 than that of psychology,
 
6:32 because in the world
we have all sorts of things,
  
6:36 which are not human
beings with selves,
  
6:38 there are animals, and plants,
and all the forces of nature,
  
6:42 and all the
stars, and so on.
  
6:44 Now, we see disorder
in nature too.
  
6:47 It may not be consciously
experienced -
  
6:49 and a cat that's suffering,
or a lion that is suffering,
  
6:52 or a mouse, or even an
earthworm that's suffering
  
6:54 may not come into a
psychiatrist's office and say so,
  
6:57 but the fact is that
there seems to be disorder
  
7:00 and conflict
within nature.
  
7:02 There are conflicts between forces
of nature, inanimate things,
  
7:06 earthquakes and so on; there are
conflicts within the animal world,
  
7:10 there are even conflicts
within the plant world.
  
7:12 Plants compete
for light,
  
7:14 and bigger ones get
higher up in the forest,
  
7:17 and the smaller ones
get shaded out and die.
  
7:19 There's conflict between
predators and prey
  
7:22 - all animals live on
other plants or animals.
  
7:26 There's every kind of
conflict, there's disease,
  
7:30 there's suffering,
there's parasites
  
7:32 - all these things occur
in the natural world.
  
7:34 So, is the context of psychological
suffering and disorder
  
7:39 something that's merely
something to do with the mind,
  
7:41 or is it something to do
with the whole of nature,
  
7:43 the fact that the world
is full of separate things,
  
7:46 and that if we have a world
which is full of separate things,
  
7:50 and these separate things are
all interacting with each other,
  
7:53 that there's always going
to be conflict in such a world.
  
7:57 B: So, I'm wondering,
is it clear
  
8:00 that there is that
disorder in nature.
  
8:02 Would we say that disorder is
only in human consciousness?
  
8:06 K: Yes.
 
8:07 B: That is, the phenomena
that you have described,
  
8:09 are they actually disorder?
That's a question we have to go into.
  
8:12 Or what is the difference between
the disorder in consciousness
  
8:16 and whatever
is going on in nature?
  
8:18 K: I saw the other night
on the television
  
8:21 a cheetah chasing
a deer, killing it.
  
8:25 Would you consider
that disorder?
  
8:28 S: Well, I would consider
that it involves suffering.
  
8:30 K: Suffering, yes.
 
8:33 So, are we saying
that it is natural in nature
  
8:41 and in human beings to
suffer, to go through agonies,
  
8:45 to live in disorder?
S: Yes.
  
8:49 K: So, what do you
say to that, sir?
  
8:51 H: Well, I think that's the way
it's looked at by the therapist.
  
8:56 To some degree
it's felt that this arises
  
9:00 in the course
of development,
  
9:02 and that some people
have it more than others
  
9:05 - suffering - some people are more
fortunate in their upbringing,
  
9:08 for example,
in their heredity.
  
9:10 But it isn't questioned that
that may not be necessary
  
9:15 in any absolute sense.
 
9:18 T:Well, that's what
we're questioning.
  
9:20 K: That's what I would
like to question too.
  
9:22 H: Yes.
 
9:24 K: Dr. Sheldrake says it is
accepted. It's like that.
  
9:28 Human condition is
to suffer, to struggle,
  
9:32 to have anxiety,
pain, disorder.
  
9:36 H: Well, it's certainly...
K: It's human condition.
  
9:38 H: It's certainly necessary
to have physical suffering.
  
9:41 People get sick, they die,
and we're wondering
  
9:46 whether or not psychological
suffering is analogous to that,
  
9:49 or whether there's something
intrinsically different about it.
  
9:52 K: No, sir. I do question,
seriously, whether human beings
  
9:59 must inevitably
live in this state,
  
10:04 everlastingly suffering,
 
10:10 everlastingly going
through this agony of life.
  
10:15 Is that necessary,
is it right that they should?
  
10:19 H: It's certainly not
desirable that they should.
  
10:21 K: No, no.
 
10:24 If we accept that it's inevitable,
as many people do,
  
10:29 then there is no answer to it.
H: Yes.
  
10:35 K: But is it inevitable?
 
10:39 H: Well, physical
suffering is inevitable.
  
10:42 K: Yes.
H: Illness, death.
  
10:43 K: Yes, sir, physical sufferings,
old age, accidents, disease.
  
10:49 H: Maybe we increase the
physical suffering
  
10:51 because of our
psychological problems.
  
10:53 K: That's it. That's it.
Sir, a mother bearing babies,
  
10:59 she goes through a terrible
time delivering them.
  
11:05 Strangely, she
forgets that pain.
  
11:09 She has the next baby,
another baby.
  
11:14 In India, as you know, mothers
have about seven or eight children.
  
11:20 If they remembered the
first agony of it,
  
11:24 they would never
have children.
  
11:27 I have talked to
several mothers about it.
  
11:30 They seem to totally forget it.
It's a blank after suffering.
  
11:38 So, is there an activity
in the psyche
  
11:46 that helps the suffering
to be wiped away?
  
11:57 Recently, personally, I have had
an operation, a minor operation,
  
12:03 there was plenty of
pain; quite a lot.
  
12:07 And it went on
considerably.
  
12:09 It's out of my mind,
completely gone.
  
12:15 So, is it
the psychological nourishing
  
12:21 of a remembrance of pain
 
12:24 - you follow? -
 
12:26 which gives us a sense
of continuity in pain?
  
12:31 H: So you are saying that perhaps
the physical suffering in the world
  
12:35 is not the source of the
psychological suffering,
  
12:37 but that the psychological
suffering is an action of its own.
  
12:43 K: Yes. Right.
 
12:47 You have had toothache,
I'm sure.
  
12:49 S: Yes. I've forgotten it.
K: You have forgotten it.
  
12:55 Why?
 
12:58 If we accept
pain is inevitable,
  
13:03 suffering is inevitable,
 
13:06 you must continue with it.
You must sustain it.
  
13:12 S: No, we have to accept
that it's inevitable,
  
13:14 as it happens
sometimes.
  
13:17 But we can forget
physical pain;
  
13:20 can we forget the kind of
psychological pain that's caused
  
13:23 by natural things
like loss, death of people?
  
13:26 K: Yes, we'll come
to that.
  
13:29 I come to you.
 
13:31 I've a problem
with my wife, if I'm married.
  
13:34 I am not,
but suppose I am married.
  
13:37 I come because
I can't get on with her.
  
13:40 H: Yes.
 
13:43 K: And she can't
get on with me.
  
13:46 And we have a problem
in relationship.
  
13:49 I come to you.
How will you help me?
  
13:55 This is a problem
that everybody's facing.
  
13:57 H: Yes.
 
14:03 K: Either divorce.
 
14:05 H: Yes.
K: Or adjustment.
  
14:11 And is that possible
when each one wants to fulfil,
  
14:15 wants to go
his own way,
  
14:20 pursue his own desires,
his own ambitions, and so on?
  
14:25 H: You are saying that the
problem arises out of the fact
  
14:28 that they each have
their own interests at heart.
  
14:32 K: No, it's not interest,
it's like...
  
14:38 Sir, we are all
terribly individualistic.
  
14:41 H: Yes.
 
14:43 K: I want my way, and
my wife wants her way.
  
14:48 Deeply.
 
14:49 H: And we see that our needs
are in conflict for some reason.
  
14:52 K: Yes, that's all.
Right away you begin.
  
14:55 After the first few days or
few months of relationship,
  
15:01 pleasure and all that, that
soon wears off and we are stuck.
  
15:05 H: Okay, that's the same
problem then with the mother
  
15:07 raising this child
and making it her toy.
  
15:11 Her needs are in conflict
with the needs of the child.
  
15:16 K: Please, perhaps
you'll go on, sir.
  
15:22 The mother, her mother
was also like that.
  
15:26 H: Yes.
 
15:28 K: And the whole world is like
that, sir. It's not the mother.
  
15:32 H: Yes.
 
15:37 K: So, when I come to you with my
problem, you say it's the mother.
  
15:42 H: No, I wouldn't say it's...
K: I object to that.
  
15:44 H: I wouldn't say it's the mother.
K: Ah, no, I'm pushing it.
  
15:50 H: You are saying that it's
a much broader problem.
  
15:53 K: Much deeper problem
than the mother;
  
15:57 didn't put the baby on the right
pot, or something.
  
16:05 H: Right.
 
16:10 Then it appears that the
needs are in conflict.
  
16:14 K: No, I wouldn't say
needs are in conflict.
  
16:18 Basically, they are divisive;
self-centred activity.
  
16:24 That inevitably must
bring contradiction,
  
16:28 you know, the whole business
of relationship and conflict.
  
16:32 H: Yes.
 
16:40 K: Because each one
wants his pleasure.
  
16:45 H: There's self-centred activity
on the part of the person
  
16:48 who's raising the child or
on the part of the person
  
16:50 who is in the
relationship, married.
  
16:56 The child is the
victim of that.
  
16:59 K: The child...
H: The child is the victim of that.
  
17:01 K: Of course.
 
17:03 H: And then grows up
to perpetuate it.
  
17:06 K: And the mother's father and
mother's fathers were like that too.
  
17:11 H: Yes. Now, why does it
have to happen that way?
  
17:15 Are we saying that's the way it is
in nature? Or are we saying that...
  
17:18 K: Oh, no.
 
17:21 S: Well, I mean, there are
certain conflicts in nature.
  
17:28 For example, among troops
of gorillas or baboons
  
17:34 - take baboons or
even chimpanzees -
  
17:39 there's a conflict
among the males.
  
17:42 Often the strongest male...
K: Yes, quite.
  
17:45 S: ...wishes to monopolise
all the attractive females.
  
17:49 Now, some of the younger males
want to get in on the act as well.
  
17:54 They try going off with these
females and this younger male
  
17:57 will fight and beat them off.
So they'll be kept out of this.
  
18:01 This selfish activity
of this one male
  
18:03 keeps most of
the females to himself.
  
18:06 The same occurs in red deer, where
the stag will monopolise the females.
  
18:11 Now, these are examples of
conflict in the animal kingdom
  
18:14 which are quite needless.
 
18:16 There would be enough food for these
hens without pecking each other.
  
18:19 Now, these are
not exceptions,
  
18:20 we can find this kind of thing
throughout the animal kingdom.
  
18:24 So, I don't think that the origin
of this kind of selfish conflict
  
18:28 is something just to
do with human societies
  
18:31 and the way they
are structured.
  
18:33 I think we can see in biological
nature this kind of thing.
  
18:36 K: Are you saying that, as we
are the result of the animal,
  
18:42 as we human beings
evolved from the animal,
  
18:45 we have inherited
all those pecking order?
  
18:48 S: Yes, I think we've inherited
a lot of animal tendencies
  
18:51 from our animal forbearers.
K: Oh, yes, obviously.
  
18:54 S: And I think that many of these show
up in these psychological problems.
  
18:58 K: Yes, but is it necessary that
we should continue that way?
  
19:05 S: Ah.
 
19:06 K: We are thoughtful, we are
ingenious in our inventions,
  
19:13 extraordinarily capable
in certain directions,
  
19:17 why should we not
also say,
  
19:20 'We won't have this,
 
19:23 the way we live,
let's change it.'
  
19:27 S: Well, we can say that;
many people have said it.
  
19:30 K: I know, many people
have said it.
  
19:32 S: But without
very much effect.
  
19:35 K: Why?
 
19:37 S: Well, that indeed
is a question.
  
19:39 Is it that we're so completely
trapped in the ancestry of the past?
  
19:43 K: Or so heavily conditioned
that it's impossible to be free.
  
19:50 S: Well, there are two possible
kinds of conditioning:
  
19:52 one is the genuine
biological conditioning
  
19:55 that comes from
our animal heritage,
  
19:56 which means that we
inherit all these tendencies.
  
19:59 K: Let's accept that.
 
20:00 S: Now, that is undoubtedly
extremely strong.
  
20:03 It goes right back
into our animal past.
  
20:05 K: Right.
 
20:06 S: The other kind of conditioning
is the kind of argument
  
20:10 that I'm putting forward,
perhaps, the argument:
  
20:12 this has always been so;
human nature is like this,
  
20:15 there have always
been wars and conflicts,
  
20:17 and all that kind of thing, and
therefore there always will be,
  
20:21 that the most we can do
is try to minimise these,
  
20:24 and that there'll always
be psychological conflicts
  
20:26 within families and
between people,
  
20:28 and that the most we can
do is try and minimise these
  
20:30 or at least make
them liveable with.
  
20:32 K: So, accept the conditioning,
modify it,
  
20:34 but you cannot
fundamentally change it.
  
20:37 S: Yes. I'm saying this is a
possible kind of conditioning,
  
20:40 the belief that we can't
really change it radically
  
20:42 is another kind of conditioning.
I'm a victim of it myself.
  
20:50 So, I don't know if it's
possible to get out of it.
  
20:52 K: That is
what I want to discuss.
  
20:56 Whether it's possible to change
the human conditioning.
  
21:00 And not accept it,
 
21:05 say, as most philosophers,
the existentialists
  
21:09 and others say, your
human nature is conditioned.
  
21:13 You cannot change.
You can modify it,
  
21:17 you can be less selfish,
 
21:19 less painful psychological
problems, bear up with pain,
  
21:24 this is natural, we have
inherited from the animals.
  
21:30 We'll go on like this
for the rest of our lives
  
21:33 and for the lives
to come.
  
21:37 Not reincarnation,
other people's lives.
  
21:41 It'll be our conditioning, human
conditioning. Do we accept that?
  
21:48 Or should we enquire into
whether it's possible
  
21:54 to change this
conditioning?
  
21:59 S: Yes. I think we
should enquire into that.
  
22:02 K: If you say it cannot be changed,
then the argument is over.
  
22:06 S: All right, so I'll say...
K: No, I'm not saying...
  
22:10 S: I'd like it to be changed,
I deeply want it to be changed.
  
22:15 So I think that this question
of enquiring into the possibility
  
22:19 is extremely important.
 
22:23 But one of my points,
 
22:25 to go back to the
conditioning point, is that
  
22:27 a lot of this conditioning is
deep in our biological nature,
  
22:31 and people who
wish to change it
  
22:32 merely by changing the
structures of society...
  
22:35 K: Oh, I'm not talking
about that, of course.
  
22:37 S: ...are operating at
too superficial a level.
  
22:39 K: Like the Communists
want to change it.
  
22:41 S: But the idea that you can do it
by just changing the environment
  
22:44 is what the Communists
thought and still think,
  
22:47 and in a sense the experiment
has been tried,
  
22:49 and we can see the results
in various communist countries.
  
22:53 And of course, believers
in that would say, well,
  
22:55 they haven't
tried properly,
  
22:57 or they betrayed the
revolution, and so on.
  
22:59 But nevertheless, the basis
of that belief is that
  
23:02 the source of all the evils
and problems is in society,
  
23:04 and by changing
society man is perfectible.
  
23:07 K: But society is formed by us.
S: Yes.
  
23:11 K: And by us it is going
to be changed.
  
23:14 So we haven't
changed ourselves.
  
23:17 We depend on society
to change us.
  
23:21 And society is what we have made it;
so we are caught in that trap.
  
23:26 S: Yes.
 
23:31 Exactly; and if we start
off with a heritage,
  
23:34 which is built into us,
inherited,
  
23:36 which comes from
our biological past,
  
23:39 and if we start with that,
and we start with these societies
  
23:42 that also have bad effects, some
of them, and to varying degrees,
  
23:46 and we just try
to change the society,
  
23:48 the other part, the inherited part,
is still there.
  
23:51 K: Oh, yes, but cannot
those also be transformed?
  
23:57 S: I really...
 
23:59 K: I may have inherited
- what? - violence
  
24:04 from the apes and so on, so on.
Can't I change that?
  
24:12 The inherited biological...
B: Drives.
  
24:16 K: ...conditioning.
Surely that can be transformed.
  
24:21 S: Well, all societies
surely seek to transform
  
24:24 these biological drives
we have, and all processes
  
24:27 of bringing children up
in all societies seek to
  
24:32 bring these drives within
the control of the society.
  
24:35 Otherwise you would
have complete anarchy.
  
24:37 However, these drives
are always brought
  
24:39 within certain social forms,
and individual aggression
  
24:42 is obviously discouraged
in most societies.
  
24:47 But is it really transformed?
Doesn't it just come out again
  
24:51 in the aggression of the society
as a whole - war, and so on.
  
24:57 So, we can see that these things
are transformed by society,
  
25:00 these basic drives
that we inherit.
  
25:03 K: But why do we…
sorry, what were you…
  
25:05 B: I was going to say they really
haven't been transformed,
  
25:08 but I think you're meaning by
transformed a fundamental change
  
25:13 and not just a superficial
change or a transfer
  
25:15 of the object of aggression from
other individuals to other groups.
  
25:22 So, if you talk of transformation,
you would say really
  
25:25 that they would benefit,
more or less go away, right?
  
25:27 That's as I understand it.
 
25:29 S: Well, they'd be changed
from one form to another.
  
25:31 B: But I meant...
S: That's what I mean.
  
25:32 B: I don't think
that's the meaning
  
25:34 which Krishnaji is using
for the word 'transform'
  
25:36 but essentially
can't we be free of them.
  
25:38 K: Yes. That's right.
Sir, why do you divide,
  
25:42 if I may ask,
society and me?
  
25:46 As though society were something
outside, which is influencing me,
  
25:53 conditioning me, but my
parents, grandparents, so on,
  
25:58 past generations, have
created that society,
  
26:01 so I am part of that society.
I am society.
  
26:05 S: Well, yes.
K: Why do we separate it?
  
26:08 S: I think the reason why
we separate it is that
  
26:11 there are different
kinds of society.
  
26:13 If I'd been born in India
instead of in England,
  
26:16 I would have grown up
in a very different way...
  
26:19 K: Of course.
S: ...with different set of attitudes.
  
26:21 S: And because we can think
of ourselves growing up
  
26:25 in different kinds of societies
- and we'd be different if we had -
  
26:28 that's why in thought, I think, we
have the idea that society and me
  
26:32 are not exactly the same.
We'd always be in one society
  
26:35 or another, so society as a whole,
all societies taken together,
  
26:40 we would only
exist within society,
  
26:43 but any particular
society
  
26:46 is in a sense an accident
of our birth or upbringing.
  
26:49 K: But even that
society is part of us.
  
26:53 S: Oh, yes. I mean through
growing up in it,
  
26:55 it becomes part of us,
and we become part of it.
  
26:57 K: But, I want to abolish
this idea, in discussion,
  
27:03 this separation from
me and society.
  
27:08 I am society,
I am the world!
  
27:11 I am the result of all these
influences, conditionings,
  
27:15 whether in the East or in the West,
or in South, or North,
  
27:18 it's all part of conditioning.
S: Yes.
  
27:21 K: So, we are attacking
the conditioning,
  
27:23 not where you are born,
or East, or West.
  
27:27 S: Oh, yes. The problem would be
conditioning of every kind,
  
27:30 our biological conditioning,
our conditioning from society.
  
27:33 K: That's right.
S: Yes.
  
27:35 K: So, personally, I don't separate
myself from society, I am society.
  
27:41 I have created society
through my anxiety,
  
27:44 through my desire
for security,
  
27:46 through my desire to have
power, and so on, so on, so on.
  
27:49 Like the animal. It's all
biologically inherited.
  
27:55 And also, my own
individualistic activity
  
28:00 has created
this society.
  
28:04 So, I am asking, I am
conditioned in that way -
  
28:07 is it not possible to be free of it?
Free of my conditioning.
  
28:15 If you say it's not possible,
then it's finished.
  
28:21 S: Well, I would say first that
it's not possible to be free
  
28:24 of all of the conditioning.
I mean, certain of it is necessary
  
28:27 biologically, the conditioning
that makes my heart beat...
  
28:30 K: Ah, well...
S: ...my lungs operate, and all that.
  
28:32 K: I admit all that.
 
28:34 S: Now, then, the question is,
how far can you take that?
  
28:37 The necessary
conditioning.
  
28:39 K: Dr. Hidley was saying
- that's his whole point -
  
28:42 I am conditioned to suffer,
psychologically. Right, sir?
  
28:48 H: Yes.
 
28:49 K: Or I am conditioned to go through
great conflict in my relationship
  
28:55 with my wife, or father,
whatever it is.
  
28:59 And you are saying, either
we investigate into that
  
29:05 and free ourselves from that,
or accept it and modify it.
  
29:10 H: That's right.
 
29:12 K: Now, which is it?
That's what I want -
  
29:14 which is it, as a psychologist,
you maintain?
  
29:21 If I may put such
a question to you.
  
29:23 H: Yes.
 
29:27 Well, I think generally the approach
is to attempt to modify it,
  
29:34 to help the patient to make it
work more effectively.
  
29:36 K: Why?
 
29:42 I hope you don't mind
my asking these questions.
  
29:45 H: No. I think that part of
the reason for that is that
  
29:48 it's seen as biological
and therefore fixed.
  
29:53 A person is born with
a certain temperament.
  
30:00 His drives are the drives of
the animal, and I think also,
  
30:06 because it isn't clear
to the therapists,
  
30:13 that the problem
can be dealt with as a whole,
  
30:20 it is clear that it can
be dealt with as particulars.
  
30:29 K: Is it... I am not asking
an impudent question, I hope.
  
30:32 H: Okay.
 
30:35 K: Is it the psychologists
don't think holistically?
  
30:45 Our only concern is
solving individual problems.
  
30:52 H: Yes, they are concerned
with solving individual problems.
  
30:55 K: So, therefore they are not thinking
of human suffering as a whole.
  
30:59 H: Right.
 
31:01 K: A particular suffering of X
who is very depressed.
  
31:07 H: Right.
For particular reasons.
  
31:09 K: For particular reasons. We don't
enquire into what is depression,
  
31:13 why human beings all over
the world are depressed.
  
31:21 H: Or we don't try and tackle
that as a single problem.
  
31:25 We try and tackle it with this
particular individual who comes in.
  
31:29 K: Therefore you are still really,
if I may point out - I may be wrong…
  
31:33 H: Yes.
 
31:35 K: You are emphasising his particular
suffering, and so sustaining it.
  
31:42 H: Now, can we
get clear on that?
  
31:45 K: I come to you.
H: Yes.
  
31:47 K: I am depressed.
H: Yes.
  
31:50 K: For various reasons
which you know.
  
31:53 H: Yes.
 
31:54 K: And you tell me,
by talking to me, etc.
  
31:59 - you know, the whole business
of coming to you, and all that -
  
32:03 you tell me my depression
is the depression of the world.
  
32:13 H: Yes, I don't tell you that.
I tell you that your depression…
  
32:17 K: When you tell me that, are
you not helping me to carry on
  
32:25 with this individualistic
depression?
  
32:29 And therefore my depression,
not your depression.
  
32:33 H: Yes.
 
32:35 K: It's my depression, which I
either cherish or want to dissolve.
  
32:41 H: Yes.
 
32:42 K: Which means I am only
concerned with myself.
  
32:45 H: Yes.
K: Myself - I come back to that.
  
32:48 H: Yes, it's within
the context of yourself.
  
32:50 K: Self.
H: Yes.
  
32:53 K: So you are helping me
to be more selfish, if I may...
  
32:58 H: Yes.
 
32:59 K: More self-concerned,
more self-committed.
  
33:06 H: It is approached within
the context of the self,
  
33:11 but I would think
that I am helping you
  
33:13 to be less
self-concerned,
  
33:15 because when you
are not depressed,
  
33:16 then you don't have
to be self-concerned.
  
33:18 You feel better and you're
able to relate to people more.
  
33:22 K: But again, on a
very superficial level.
  
33:26 H: Meaning that
I leave the self intact.
  
33:30 K: Intact.
H: Yes.
  
33:32 B: Yes, well, I feel that people
generally wouldn't accept this
  
33:36 that the self is not there,
which is what you're implying
  
33:39 that the self is
rather unimportant.
  
33:40 But rather the assumption is
that the self is really there,
  
33:45 and it has to be improved,
and if you say...
  
33:48 K: That's it, that's it.
 
33:49 B: A certain amount
of self-centredness
  
33:51 people would say is normal.
K: Yes, sir.
  
33:53 B: It's only to keep it
within reason, right?
  
33:55 H: Right.
 
33:57 K: Modify selfishness,
right?
  
34:02 Continue with selfishness,
but go slow. Piano.
  
34:05 B: But I think, you're saying something
which is very radical then,
  
34:09 because very few
people have entertained
  
34:13 the notion of
no self-centredness.
  
34:15 K: That's it.
 
34:19 H: That's right;
it isn't entertained.
  
34:22 B: Maybe a few, but...
H: Yes.
  
34:25 For biological reasons and
because of the universality
  
34:29 of the phenomenon? Because it
isn't even seen as relevant, really.
  
34:34 B: I think most people feel
that's the way things are,
  
34:37 it's the only way.
H: Yes.
  
34:39 K: That means status quo,
modified status quo.
  
34:42 B: Yes.
S: Yes.
  
34:45 K: To me that seems
so irrational.
  
34:50 B: But you must feel that it's
possible to be different, you see,
  
34:53 at least, more than
feel, but in some sense
  
34:56 there must be some reason
why you say this.
  
34:58 K: I'll tell you…What?
 
35:01 B: Why you feel so different
from other people about it.
  
35:04 K: It seems so practical,
first of all.
  
35:09 The way we live
is so impractical.
  
35:13 The wars, the accumulation of
armaments, is totally impractical.
  
35:17 B: But that wouldn't be an argument,
because people say,
  
35:19 'We all understand that, but
since that's the way we are,
  
35:22 nothing else
is possible.'
  
35:24 You see, you really are
challenging the notion
  
35:26 that that is the way we are,
or we have to be.
  
35:30 K: I don't quite follow this.
We are what we are.
  
35:33 B: People say, we are
individual, separate,
  
35:37 and we'll just have to fight
and make the best of it.
  
35:40 But you are saying
something different,
  
35:43 you're not accepting
that.
  
35:45 K: All right. Don't accept it,
but will you listen?
  
35:51 Will the people
who don't accept it,
  
35:54 will they give their minds
to find out?
  
35:58 Right?
H: Right.
  
36:00 K: Or say, 'Please, we don't want
to listen to you.'
  
36:02 This is what we think - buzz off.
 
36:08 That's what
most people do.
  
36:11 H: Well, this question
isn't even raised usually.
  
36:13 K: Of course.
 
36:20 H: Now why do you think
that the self,
  
36:23 this selfish activity,
isn't necessary?
  
36:29 K: No, sir, first of all,
 
36:32 do we accept the condition
that we are in?
  
36:37 Do we accept it, and say,
'Please, we can only modify it,
  
36:41 and it can
never be changed'.
  
36:45 One can never be free
from this anxiety,
  
36:50 deep depression; modify it,
always, from agony of life.
  
36:56 You follow? This process of
going through tortures in oneself.
  
37:01 That's normal,
accepted.
  
37:04 Modify it, live little more quietly,
and so on, so on.
  
37:09 If you accept that, there is
no communication between us.
  
37:17 But if you say, I know my conditioning,
I may perhaps, I may...
  
37:22 tell me, let's just talk about
whether one can be free from it.
  
37:26 Then we have a relationship,
 
37:28 then we can communicate
with each other.
  
37:31 But you say, sorry, shut the door
in my face, and it's finished.
  
37:41 S: So, there are some people who
accept it, say, 'We can't change it'.
  
37:47 But there are other
people, and I would say,
  
37:49 some of the most
inspiring leaders
  
37:51 of the different religions
of the world are among them,
  
37:54 who have said we can change it;
there is a way beyond this.
  
37:56 K: Yes.
 
37:58 S: Now, since religions
have wide followings,
  
38:02 and since their doctrines
are widely dispersed,
  
38:05 there are in fact large numbers
of people in our society,
  
38:07 and in every society,
who do think it can be changed.
  
38:12 Because all religions hold out
the prospect of change
  
38:15 and of going beyond
this conditioning.
  
38:17 K: Yes. But I would like to know,
when you use the word 'religion',
  
38:23 is it the organised
religion,
  
38:26 is it the authoritarian
religion,
  
38:30 is it the religion of belief,
dogma, rituals, all that?
  
38:36 S: Well...
K: Or religion in the sense:
  
38:44 the accumulation
of energy to find
  
38:50 whether it is possible
to be free.
  
38:53 You understand
my question?
  
38:55 S: Yes. Well, I think the second,
but I think that, if we look
  
39:02 into the history of the organised
religions and people within them,
  
39:05 we see that much of the
inspiration for them was in fact
  
39:08 that second kind of religion,
which still within that framework,
  
39:12 still survives, I think.
But it's also something
  
39:16 which has often been corrupted,
and debased, and turned into
  
39:20 yet another set of dogmas,
conditioning, and so on.
  
39:23 But I think within all
religious traditions
  
39:27 this second kind of religion you
talk about has been kept alive,
  
39:31 and I think that the impetus in
all the great religions of the world
  
39:35 has been that vision,
it's then been debased
  
39:39 and degraded
in various ways.
  
39:41 But this vision has never
left any of these religions,
  
39:43 there are still people within
them, I think, who still have it.
  
39:46 And this is the inner light
that keeps them going,
  
39:48 over and above the
simple political part,
  
39:50 and all the rest of it.
K: I know, I know.
  
39:52 But suppose, a man like
me rejects tradition.
  
40:01 Rejects anything that has
been said about truth,
  
40:09 about god, whatever it is,
the other side.
  
40:12 I don't know; the other people say,
'Yes, we have this and that'.
  
40:17 So, how am I, as a human being
who has really rejected all this
  
40:25 - tradition, the people
who have said there is,
  
40:29 and the people who have
said that's all nonsense,
  
40:33 people who have said we have
found that it is, and so on, so on.
  
40:37 If you wipe all that out and
say, 'Look, I must find out
  
40:43 - not as an individual -
 
40:49 can this truth, or this
bliss, this illumination,
  
40:56 an come without
depending on all that?'
  
41:03 You see, if I am anchored,
for example, in Hinduism,
  
41:09 with all the... -
not the superficiality of it,
  
41:13 not all the rituals and
all the superstitions,
  
41:16 if I am anchored in the
religious belief of a Hindu,
  
41:22 of a real Brahmin, I am always
anchored, and I may go very far,
  
41:28 but I am anchored there.
That is not freedom.
  
41:36 Because there must be freedom
to discover this, or come upon this.
  
41:43 S: Yes.
 
41:44 K: Sir, we are going
little bit too far?
  
41:47 S: No, but I would then
go back and say, well,
  
41:52 you put forward the question of
a man who rejects all his traditions.
  
41:56 You said, let us suppose
that I am a man
  
41:58 who has rejected
all these traditions.
  
42:01 I would then say, well,
what reason do you have
  
42:03 for rejecting all these
traditions in such a way?
  
42:07 H: Well, that seems to be part of
the problem that we've arrived at.
  
42:11 We have said that man is
conditioned biologically
  
42:14 and socially by his family.
The tradition is part of that.
  
42:19 We've said that that's the
problem that we're up against now.
  
42:22 Is it possible for him
to change his nature,
  
42:24 or do we have to deal with each
of these problems particularly
  
42:28 as they come up?
 
42:30 S: Well, what I was saying
is that the inner core
  
42:32 of all the great religions
of the world is a vision
  
42:35 of this possibility
of a transformation,
  
42:39 whether it's called salvation,
or liberation, or nirvana, or what.
  
42:43 There's this vision.
 
42:45 Now, there have always been
people within those religions,
  
42:50 who've had this vision
and lived this vision; now...
  
42:54 K: Ah! Sorry.
Go on, I'm sorry.
  
42:58 S: Perhaps part of your radical
rejection of all religions
  
43:00 involves denying that.
But if so, I would say, why?
  
43:04 Why should we be so radical
as to deny...
  
43:07 K: I question whether they really
- I may be sacrilegious, may be
  
43:17 an infidel, non-believer -
 
43:21 I wonder, if I am anchored
to a certain organised belief,
  
43:28 whether I can ever
find the other.
  
43:32 If I am a Buddhist,
for example,
  
43:38 I believe that the Buddha
is my saviour.
  
43:42 Suppose, I believe that,
 
43:44 and that has been told
to me from childhood,
  
43:47 my parents have been Buddhists,
and so on, so on, so on.
  
43:51 And as long as
I have found
  
43:57 that security
in that idea,
  
44:01 or in that belief,
in that person,
  
44:06 there is no freedom.
 
44:10 S: No, but it's possible that you
can move beyond that framework,
  
44:13 starting from within it,
you can move beyond it.
  
44:16 K: That means
I wipe out everything.
  
44:20 S: It means you wipe it out,
but there's a difference between
  
44:24 an approach where you wipe it out
from the beginning...
  
44:26 K: From the beginning,
I am talking.
  
44:28 S: ...and an approach where you
start within it and go beyond it.
  
44:33 K: You see - wait, wait. Yes,
I know, it's the well-worn argument.
  
44:44 Which is important, breaking down
all the barriers at the beginning,
  
44:50 not at the end.
 
44:56 I am a Hindu, I see
what Hinduism is
  
45:03 - a lot of superstition, you
know, all the rest of it -
  
45:06 and why should I go through
number of years to end it,
  
45:10 why can't I finish it
the first day?
  
45:15 S: Because I think you'd have
to reinvent and rediscover
  
45:18 for yourself a great many
things that you would be able
  
45:22 to get through more quickly
if you didn't.
  
45:25 K: No. His question is...
 
45:29 I am a living human being
in relationship with him or with her.
  
45:33 In that relationship
I am in conflict.
  
45:38 He says, don't go about
religion and illumination,
  
45:42 and nirvana, and
all the rest of it.
  
45:44 Transform this, live rightly here,
then the door is open.
  
45:53 S: Yes, but surely, isn't that
easier said than done?
  
45:59 K: I know! I know it's easier said
than done, therefore let's find out.
  
46:06 Let me find out with him,
or with you, or with her,
  
46:11 how to live in this world
without conflict.
  
46:17 Right, sir?
 
46:18 H: That's what
we're asking.
  
46:20 K: Can I find out,
or is that impossible?
  
46:24 H: We don't know.
 
46:26 K: No. Therefore we start
- we don't know.
  
46:27 H: Okay.
 
46:29 K: So let's enquire
into that.
  
46:33 Because if my relationship
with life is not right
  
46:42 - right in quotes
for the moment -
  
46:44 how can I find out something
that's immensely beyond all this?
  
46:50 Beyond time, beyond thought,
beyond measure.
  
46:55 I can't.
 
46:57 Until we have established
right relationship between us,
  
47:02 which is order, how can I find that
which is supreme order?
  
47:09 So I must begin with you,
not with that.
  
47:13 I don't know
if you are meeting me.
  
47:15 S: No, I would have thought
that you could easily argue
  
47:17 the other way around.
K: Of course, of course!
  
47:20 S: Until you have that,
you can't get this right,
  
47:22 because the whole history of man
shows that starting just from...
  
47:25 K: Ah! Therefore
you invent that.
  
47:30 You invent
something illogical,
  
47:34 may not be true;
may be just invention of thought,
  
47:39 and you imagine
that to be order
  
47:44 and hope that order
will filter into you.
  
47:49 And it seems
so illogical, irrational,
  
47:54 whereas this is
so rational.
  
47:57 S: But is it possible?
K: That is it! Let's find out.
  
48:05 S: But you've now completely reversed
your argument to start with.
  
48:09 He started with the patient coming
to the psychiatrist's office,
  
48:12 who wants to get
his relationships right,
  
48:15 get the human relationships
out of this state of disorder
  
48:18 and conflict into something
that's more tolerable.
  
48:21 K: I'm not sure this way -
forgive me, Doctor, if I'm blundering
  
48:26 into where the angels
fear to tread,
  
48:33 I question whether
they are doing right.
  
48:36 S: But they're doing
just what you said now
  
48:38 starting with the relationship, not
going into these bigger questions.
  
48:41 K: But I question whether
they are really concerned
  
48:45 with bringing about a right
relationship between human beings,
  
48:49 fundamentally,
not superficially,
  
48:52 just to adjust
themselves for the day.
  
48:57 H: I don't think that you're
denying that larger questions
  
49:01 are involved in that, you are
just saying that we shouldn't have...
  
49:05 invent ideas about
what a solution would be like.
  
49:07 K: Yes. I come to you
with my problem :
  
49:14 I cannot get on
with somebody,
  
49:17 or I am terribly
depressed,
  
49:20 or something
dishonest in me,
  
49:27 I pretend.
I come to you.
  
49:31 You are concerned to tell me
'Become more honest.'
  
49:36 H: Yes.
 
49:37 K: But not find out
what is real honesty.
  
49:44 H: Don't we get into
the problem of creating
  
49:47 the idea of real honesty
at this point?
  
49:48 K: No. It's not an idea.
I am dishonest.
  
49:51 H: Yes.
 
49:52 K: You enquire, why are you dishonest?
H: Yes.
  
49:54 K: Go... penetrate into it,
disturb me. Don't pacify me.
  
49:59 H: Yes.
 
50:01 K: Don't help me to say, well,
be a little more honest,
  
50:04 and a little more this or that,
but shake me
  
50:07 so that I find out
what is real honesty!
  
50:14 H: Okay, that's...
 
50:16 K: I may break away from my
conditioning, from my wife,
  
50:21 from my parents
- anything.
  
50:24 You don't disturb me.
 
50:26 H: No, that's...
K: That's just my point.
  
50:29 H: I do disturb you.
K: Partially.
  
50:31 H: Well, what...
 
50:33 K: You disturb me not to conform
to little adjustments.
  
50:37 H: Well, let's look at that.
K: Sorry.
  
50:43 H: I disturb you to conform
to little adjustments.
  
50:47 K: Yes.
 
50:49 K: You don't say to me, 'Look,
you are dishonest, let's go into it.'
  
50:53 H: I do say that.
 
50:55 K: No, but go into it, so
that he is totally honest.
  
50:59 H: Well, how deeply
do I need to go into it,
  
51:01 so that I have
disturbed you totally?
  
51:03 K: Yes. So you tell me.
Do it now, sir.
  
51:08 H: Okay. You come in, and in our talks
we notice that the thing
  
51:13 that you are up to is
that you are always trying
  
51:17 to find some other person
to make your life be whole.
  
51:22 K: Yes. I depend on somebody.
H: Yes, deeply.
  
51:26 K: Deeply.
H: And you don't even know that.
  
51:28 K: Yes.
 
51:30 H: So I disturb you. I tell you
that that's what's going on,
  
51:32 and I show you
you're doing it with me.
  
51:34 K: Yes.
 
51:35 H: I show you you're doing it
with your husband.
  
51:37 K: Yes.
 
51:38 H: Now, is that sufficiently deep?
K: No.
  
51:41 H: Why?
 
51:44 K: What have you
shown me?
  
51:49 A verbal picture...
 
51:51 H: No, not verbal. Not verbal.
K: Wait, wait.
  
51:53 H: Okay.
 
51:55 K: Verbal picture,
an argument,
  
51:59 a thing which tells me
that I am dishonest.
  
52:02 Or whatever you tell me.
That leaves me where?
  
52:07 H: If it's verbal it just gives you
more knowledge about yourself.
  
52:09 K: That's all.
Knowledge about myself.
  
52:13 H: Yes.
K: Will knowledge transform me?
  
52:16 H: No.
K: No. Be careful, sir, careful.
  
52:24 Then why do
I come to you?
  
52:27 H: Well, not so that
I can give you knowledge.
  
52:32 You come thinking that maybe
somehow I have some answers,
  
52:36 because other people,
because the society is set up...
  
52:38 K: Why don't you tell me, 'Old boy,
do it yourself, don't depend on me.'
  
52:45 Go into it.
Find out, stir.
  
52:48 H: Okay, I tell you that.
I tell you, 'Go into it yourself'.
  
52:52 And you say to me...
K: I can't do it.
  
52:55 H: I don't know what
you're talking about.
  
52:56 K: That's just it.
H: Yes.
  
52:58 K: So, how will you help me to go
into myself and not depend on you?
  
53:06 You understand my question?
H: Yes.
  
53:08 K: Please, I'm not on the stage,
the only actor.
  
53:21 Sir, this is really
a serious question.
  
53:25 How will you help me
to go into myself so deeply,
  
53:34 that I understand and go beyond.
You know what I mean?
  
53:39 H: No, I don't follow
what you mean.
  
53:41 I understand how to help you go
into it without depending on me.
  
53:45 K: I don't want to depend on you.
I don't want to depend on anybody.
  
53:48 H: Okay. I can help you do that.
We can discover together
  
53:53 that you are
depending on me,
  
53:55 but I don't know how deeply
this has to go.
  
53:59 K: So you have to enquire
into dependence.
  
54:02 H: Okay.
K: Why am I depending?
  
54:05 Security.
H: Yes.
  
54:08 K: Where is security?
Is there such thing as security?
  
54:15 H: Well, I have these experiences
as I grew up
  
54:19 that taught me
what security is.
  
54:21 K: Yes, which is what?
A projected idea.
  
54:24 H: Yes.
K: A principle.
  
54:26 H: Yes.
K: A belief, a faith,
  
54:28 a dogma, or an ideal,
which are all projected by me,
  
54:34 or by you, and I accept those.
But they're unreal.
  
54:41 H: Okay.
K: So, can I push those away?
  
54:47 H: Yes. And then you are
not depressed.
  
54:50 K: Ah! I am dependent and
therefore I get angry,
  
54:57 jealousy, all the rest of it.
That dependence makes me attached,
  
55:04 and in that attachment there is
more fear, there is more anxiety,
  
55:07 there is more... - you follow?
H: Yes.
  
55:09 K: So, can you help me to be free
or find out what is true security?
  
55:20 Is there a deep
abiding security?
  
55:24 Not in furniture,
not in a house,
  
55:27 not in my wife,
or in some idea
  
55:30 - find deeply if there is such thing
as complete security.
  
55:37 Sorry, I'm taking
all this…
  
55:44 H: So you're suggesting that
if I simply work on this with you,
  
55:48 and you come to understand
that you're dependent,
  
55:51 that that's
not sufficient,
  
55:52 because you won't have discovered
any abiding security.
  
55:55 K: No. Because
that's all I want.
  
56:00 I've sought security
in this house,
  
56:02 and it doesn't,
there's no security.
  
56:04 I've sought security
in my wife,
  
56:07 there isn't any;
I change to another woman,
  
56:10 but there isn't any either.
Then I find security in a church,
  
56:14 in a god, in a belief, in a faith,
in some other symbol.
  
56:21 You see what is happening?
You are all externalising,
  
56:24 if I can use that word,
 
56:27 giving me security in things
in which there is no security
  
56:31 - in nations,
all the rest of it.
  
56:34 Could you help us
to find out if there is
  
56:41 complete security
which is unshakeable?
  
56:47 S: Are you suggesting that this is
one of our most fundamental needs,
  
56:50 driving activities?
K: I should think so.
  
56:58 S: So indeed it's
a fundamental question
  
57:00 as to whether this
sense of abiding
  
57:04 unshakeable security is possible.
K: Yes. Yes.
  
57:07 Because if once you have that
there is no problem any more.
  
57:15 H: But this isn't clear, because then
is it the individual that has that?
  
57:22 K: No. Individual can
never have that security.
  
57:29 Because he is
in himself divisive.