Krishnamurti Subtitles

The need for security

Ojai - 17 April 1982

Discussion with Scientists 3

0:05 The Nature of the Mind
0:16 Part Three
0:19 The Need for Security
0:29 This is one of a series of
dialogues between J Krishnamurti,
0:33 David Bohm, Rupert
Sheldrake, and John Hidley.
0:37 The purpose of these discussions
is to explore essential questions
0:40 about the mind, what is
psychological disorder,
0:44 and what is required for
fundamental psychological change.
0:49 J Krishnamurti is a religious
philosopher, author, and educator,
0:53 who has written and given lectures
on these subjects for many years.
0:57 He has founded elementary
and secondary schools
0:59 in the United States,
England, and India.
1:02 David Bohm is professor
of theoretical physics
1:06 at Birkbeck College,
London University in England.
1:10 He has written numerous books
concerning theoretical physics
1:13 and the nature
of consciousness.
1:15 Professor Bohm and
Mr. Krishnamurti
1:17 have held previous
dialogues on many subjects.
1:20 Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist,
whose recently published book
1:24 proposes that learning in
some members of a species
1:27 affects the
species as a whole.
1:30 Dr. Sheldrake is presently
consulting plant physiologist
1:34 to the International
Crops Research Institute
1:36 in Hyderabad, India.
1:38 John Hidley is a psychiatrist
in private practice,
1:41 who has been associated
with the Krishnamurti school
1:44 in Ojai, California
for the past six years.
1:47 In the first two dialogues
consideration has been given
1:50 to the process of
self identification.
1:53 A range of subjects has been
related to this process
1:57 including the problem
of suffering,
1:59 the role of thinking
and memory,
2:01 images, and the uniqueness
or commonality of consciousness.
2:06 Can these processes be observed,
and what is the relationship
2:09 of observation to order,
responsibility and change?
2:14 Today's discussion
focuses on the question:
2:17 is there such a thing as
absolute psychological security?
2:21 H: We would like to talk about
the question of whether there is
2:26 a deep security, whether
the self can be dissolved.
2:32 You have suggested that
2:36 if that's possible,
then the problems
2:38 that the individual brings
to the office, the problems...
2:41 K: Sir, why do we seek security,
apart from physical?
2:48 Apart from terrestrial
2:53 why do we want
2:55 H: Well, we know moments
of peace and happiness,
2:57 and we want to stabilise
that and hold that.
3:02 K: Then that
becomes a memory.
3:05 H: Yes.
K: Not actual security.
3:09 A memory that one day
you were happy,
3:14 and I wish one could
go back to it.
3:18 Or you project an idea and
a hope someday to achieve it.
3:23 But why is it that human beings,
probably throughout the world,
3:28 seek security? What
is the raison d'être,
3:33 if I may put it,
the demand for security?
3:37 What makes people ask
for security, psychologically?
3:44 H: Well, they're occupied,
they're filled with their problems.
3:52 There's the feeling that
if I can solve the problem,
3:55 if I can find out what
the right answer is, if...
3:58 K: That's not
security, surely.
4:04 There is great
4:10 great sense of emptiness
in oneself, loneliness.
4:17 Really, loneliness
- let's take that for an example.
4:21 H: OK.
4:23 K: I may be married, I may have
children, and all the rest of it,
4:27 but I still feel
isolated, lonely.
4:33 And it's frightening,
4:37 and I realise
it is isolating.
4:43 After all, loneliness is
the essence of isolation,
4:47 in which I have no
relationship with anybody.
4:51 Is that one of the reasons
why human beings seek security,
4:55 this desire for security?
H: Yes, to fill that up.
5:01 K: Or much deeper
than that.
5:07 To be secure
in my fulfilment,
5:15 to be free of fear,
free of my agony.
5:22 I want to be free of all those,
so that I can be completely secure,
5:27 in peace and happiness.
Is that what we want?
5:30 H: Yes.
K: Is that the reason why we seek?
5:33 H: And we want that
to be stable over time.
5:37 K: Stable, permanent
- if there is anything permanent.
5:43 Is that the reason why we crave this,
demand, crave for security?
5:50 H: Yes.
5:56 K: That means to be free from fear,
and then I am totally secure.
6:04 H: It feels like I have to be that way
in order to function adequately.
6:11 K: Function adequately
comes later.
6:14 H: What do you mean?
6:16 K: If I am secure, I'll function.
H: Yes.
6:20 K: If I am very anchored in something
which I think is false or true,
6:27 I'll act according
to those two principles.
6:31 But is it that human
beings are incapable
6:35 of solving this deep-rooted fear
- for example, I am taking fear -
6:42 and they have not
been able to solve it.
6:46 H: Yes, that's right.
K: Psychological fears.
6:50 K: And to be free from that
is to be so marvellously secure.
6:59 H: You are saying that
if we can solve these problems
7:02 at a fundamental level.
7:04 K: Otherwise what's the point,
how can I be totally secure?
7:07 H: Yes.
7:12 K: So, is it the physical security,
of bread, of shelter,
7:22 food and clothes, spilling over
to the psychological field?
7:28 You understand
what I mean?
7:30 H: Do you mean, is that where
the psychological feeling of the need
7:34 for security comes from?
K: Yes, partly.
7:40 One must have food,
and clothes, and shelter.
7:43 That's absolutely essential,
otherwise you four
7:46 wouldn't be sitting here.
H: Yes.
7:48 K: In the search of that,
psychologically also,
7:55 I want to be
equally secure.
8:00 H: They seem
to be equated.
8:02 K: Yes, I'm questioning
whether it is so.
8:06 H: Yes.
8:07 K: Or the psychological desire to be
secure prevents physical security.
8:24 H: It seems like the psychological
desire to be secure
8:27 arises out of the necessity
to function in reality.
8:32 K: I want to be
psychologically secure.
8:37 H: Yes.
8:39 K: So, I am attached to a group,
a community, a nation.
8:43 H: Yes.
8:44 K: Which then prevents me
from being secure.
8:49 Security means
long-lasting security.
8:56 But if I identify myself, in my
search for psychological security,
9:02 and attach myself to a nation,
that very isolation
9:06 is going to destroy me.
H: Yes.
9:13 K: So, why do we
seek this?
9:18 H: OK, then you're saying
that there is a mistake,
9:21 which is that we
identify ourselves,
9:23 attach ourselves to something
and seek security in that,
9:27 and that that's
fundamentally wrong.
9:30 K: Yes. No, not fundamentally.
I won't say right or wrong.
9:34 H: OK.
K: I am asking why?
9:37 Why do human
beings do this?
9:39 A fact which is right through
the world, it's not just
9:44 for certain communities
9:46 - all human beings
want to be so...
9:54 unshakeable security.
9:56 H: Yes.
K: Why?
10:03 B: Well, I think that
people have some answers.
10:05 You see, if you say,
there's a young child, or a baby,
10:09 now, he feels the need to be loved
by his parents, and it seems that
10:14 at a certain stage the infant
has the need for a kind of
10:17 psychological security, which
he should grow out of, perhaps,
10:21 but since he isn't properly taken
care of by his parents very often,
10:27 he begins to feel lost,
as you say, alone, isolated,
10:33 and there arises the demand
that he become inwardly secure.
10:39 K: A baby must
be secure.
10:42 B: Yes, psychologically as well
as physically, would you say?
10:46 K: Yes, there must be.
10:48 B: Now, at some stage you would say,
that it would change.
10:51 K: Yes.
B: I don't know what age.
10:53 K: Why… No, a certain age,
a small baby,
10:56 or a young child,
it must be protected.
11:01 B: In every way, psychologically.
K: Yes, psychologically...
11:03 B: It must not be
shocked psychologically.
11:05 K: You protect it with affection,
taking it in your lap,
11:08 cuddling him or her,
and holding his hand,
11:11 you make him feel that he is loved,
that he is cared for.
11:16 That gives him a feeling
- here is somebody,
11:19 who is looking after me,
and there is security here.
11:22 B: Yes, and then I suppose, he will
grow up not requiring that security.
11:26 K: That's it. I am questioning,
as he grows up,
11:31 and as he faces the world,
why does he crave for security?
11:36 B: Well, I think very few children
ever have that love to begin with.
11:40 K: Oh, that's it.
So is that the problem?
11:46 B: Well, I don't know,
but that's one factor in there.
11:49 K: That we really
don't love?
11:59 And if one loves,
12:02 there is no need
for security.
12:08 You don't even
think about security.
12:11 If I love you,
not intellectually, not
12:18 because you give me comfort,
sex, or this, or that,
12:23 if I really have this deep
sense of love for another,
12:29 what is the need
for security?
12:33 It's my responsibility
to see that you are secure.
12:38 But you don't demand it.
H: Yes.
12:42 K: But human beings do.
And does that mean
12:48 we don't love another?
12:53 H: Yes, it means that
what we love is the...
13:00 K: I love you because
you give me something.
13:02 H: Yes.
13:04 You make me feel like I'm going
to get that security which I crave.
13:07 K: Yes. So, no, we are
skirting around this. Why?
13:18 Why do I want security,
so that I feel completely content,
13:27 without fear, without anxiety,
without agony, and so on?
13:33 Is fear the root
of all this?
13:37 H: Oh, we seem to have mentioned
already several things
13:40 that are the root of it.
As the baby grows up and isn't loved,
13:44 he feels the need for that,
he remembers that,
13:48 he tries to return to that,
or get that as an adult,
13:51 he's afraid because
he's not protected,
13:54 and as an adult he tries
to get that protection.
13:56 K: Or, sir, is it
14:02 we know that the self,
the me, the ego
14:08 is really totally
14:14 H: You are saying that in its nature
it's totally unstable?
14:16 K: In its nature,
14:20 And therefore, there is this anxiety
for security, outside or inside.
14:28 H: Why do you say
it's totally unstable?
14:30 K: Isn't it?
14:33 Isn't our consciousness
14:38 H: It seems to have two sides to it.
One side says that
14:43 if I could just get such and such,
I would be stable.
14:46 K: Yes. And there is
a contradiction to that.
14:50 I may not be.
14:52 H: I may not be.
K: Yes, of course.
14:54 H: I'm not yet, but I will be.
K: Will be.
14:56 H: Yes.
14:58 K: No, much more
fundamentally, is not this...
15:02 the self itself in a state
of movement, uncertainty,
15:14 attached, fear in attachment
- all that?
15:19 That's a state
of lack of stability.
15:25 Therefore, I am asking,
is that the reason
15:29 that human beings
15:32 knowing the instability
of the self,
15:37 want security
- God, the saviour?
15:43 H: Wanting something
15:45 K: Yes, completely...
that'll give complete contentment.
16:00 Because our consciousness
is its content.
16:08 Right?
H: Yes.
16:09 K: And the content is always
in contradiction.
16:13 I believe...
H: That's right.
16:14 K: ...and yet I'm frightened
of not believing.
16:19 H: That's why you're saying
it's in essence unstable.
16:21 K: Obviously, it is unstable.
So clearly unstable.
16:27 I want this thing, and some other
desire comes along and says,
16:31 'Don't have that, for god's sake'.
There is this contradiction,
16:34 there is duality, all that exists
in our consciousness:
16:40 fear, pleasure,
fear of death,
16:46 you know all the content
of our consciousness - all that.
16:51 So that is unstable.
16:54 H: Now, sensing all of that,
people generally say,
16:59 'This problem is too deep,
or too complex,
17:02 there's no way
to solve it,
17:03 we can maybe just
make some adjustments'.
17:06 K: Yes, yes. And in that adjustment
also there is lack of stability.
17:13 So, unconsciously there must be
craving for security.
17:18 So, we invent God.
17:22 H: We keep inventing lots
of different things
17:24 we hope will give
us that security.
17:26 K: We create God,
he's our creation.
17:32 We are not the creation of God,
I wish we were.
17:36 We would be
totally different.
17:39 So, there is this illusory
desire for security.
17:46 H: Wait a minute, why do
you say that it's illusory?
17:48 K: Because they invent something,
in which they hope they'll be secure.
17:51 H: Oh, I see. Yes.
17:57 K: So, if the content of our
consciousness can be changed
18:05 - quotes, changed -
would there be need for security?
18:11 H: If we could eliminate
all these contradictions?
18:13 K: Yes, contradictions.
18:15 H: Then maybe we would
have the security,
18:17 because our consciousness
would be stable.
18:18 K: So that maybe…
We may not call it security.
18:26 To be secure, which is a really
disgusting desire, sorry.
18:36 To be secure in what?
About what?
18:43 Personally, I never thought about
security. You might say, well,
18:48 'You are looked after, you
are cared for by others',
18:51 and all the rest of it,
therefore there is no need for you
18:54 to think about security, but I never
- I don't want security.
19:01 I need, of course, I need food,
clothes and shelter,
19:03 that's understood,
somebody to...
19:07 H: But we're talking about
psychological security.
19:09 K: Yes, I'm talking of
much deeper issue.
19:13 H: And you're saying that
that occurs because
19:15 the contents of consciousness
are no longer contradictory.
19:19 K: Is there a consciousness...
19:20 It may not be what we know
as consciousness,
19:23 it may be something
totally different.
19:28 All that we know is fear,
reward and pleasure,
19:38 and death,
19:40 and constant conflict in relationship
- I love you, but...
19:46 H: Within limits.
K: Within limits.
19:49 I don't know
if that's called love.
19:52 So, the content
of consciousness is all that,
19:57 which is me.
My consciousness is me.
20:05 In this complex, contradictory,
dualistic existence,
20:12 that very fact creates
the demand for security.
20:19 H: Yes.
20:22 K: So, can we eliminate
the self?
20:28 H: But we haven't
- have we got into the self?
20:31 It seems like there's somebody
in there, in here, who's going
20:34 to juggle all these things
and get rid of the contradictions.
20:37 K: But that means you are different
from this, from consciousness.
20:44 H: Right.
20:46 K: But you are that!
You are pleasure, you are fear,
20:51 you are all belief
- all that you are.
21:02 I think we…
21:03 don't please agree with what we
are talking about, what I'm saying.
21:07 It may be all tommyrot.
21:09 H: I think there are a lot of people
who wouldn't agree with that.
21:11 I think that
they would say that...
21:13 K: I know there're a lot of people
who wouldn't agree,
21:15 because they
haven't gone into it.
21:16 They just want
to brush all this aside.
21:18 H: Let's look at this. Is there a
self that's separate, that's going
21:21 to be able to somehow
iron out these contradictions?
21:24 K: No!
21:26 S: But how do you know? I mean,
it seems to me that there is a...
21:33 at least, it may be illusory,
but it's very easy to think
21:36 that one is separate from
some of these problems,
21:39 and that there's something inside
one which can make decisions.
21:42 K: Doctor, am I separate
from my fear?
21:48 Am I separate from the agony
I go through? The depression?
21:53 S: Well, I think that there's
something within one,
21:55 which can examine these things,
and that's why it indicates
21:58 there is some
kind of separation.
22:00 K: Because there is the observer
separate from the observed.
22:07 S: Yes.
K: Is that so?
22:10 S: Well, it seems to be so.
K: It seems to be so!
22:12 S: Now, this seems to be the problem,
that it does seem to be so.
22:16 I mean, in my own experience,
of course, and many other people's,
22:20 it does indeed seem that there is
an observer observing things
22:24 like fear and one's own reactions.
And it comes out most clearly,
22:28 I find, in insomnia,
if one's trying to sleep,
22:31 there's one part of one
which, say, is just going on
22:34 with silly worries and ridiculous
thoughts, round and round',
22:38 there's another part of one
that says, 'I really want to sleep,
22:40 I wish I could stop
all these silly thoughts'.
22:43 And there one has
this actual experience
22:45 of an apparent separation.
K: Yes. Of course, of course.
22:48 S: So, this isn't just a theory,
it's an actual fact of experience
22:52 that there is this
kind of separation.
22:54 K: I agree, I agree.
23:01 But why does that
division exist?
23:05 S: Well, this is a good...
K: Who created the division?
23:11 S: It may just be a fact.
23:14 K: What may?
23:16 S: It may just be a fact.
K: Is that so? I want to examine it.
23:19 S: Yes, so do I. I mean, is it indeed
a fact that consciousness,
23:24 as it were, has levels,
some of which can examine others,
23:27 one at a time?
23:29 K: No. Would you kindly consider,
is fear different from me?
23:34 I may act upon fear, I may say,
'I must suppress it,
23:38 I may rationalise it, I might
transcend it', but the fear is me.
23:46 S: Well, we often...
K: I only invent the separation
23:50 where I want
to act upon it.
23:55 But otherwise
I am fear.
24:01 S: The common and ordinary
way of analysing it would be to say
24:04 'I feel afraid' as if the afraidness
was separate from the I.
24:09 I want to get out of this state
of feeling afraid,
24:11 so I want to escape from it,
leaving the fear behind,
24:14 and the I will pass beyond it
and somehow escape it.
24:17 This is the normal way we think.
K: I know.
24:20 S: So, what's wrong
with that?
24:23 K: You keep up
this conflict.
24:26 B: But I think, he is saying
it may be inevitable.
24:29 S: It may be inevitable, you see.
K: I question it.
24:32 B: Well... How do you propose
to show it's not inevitable?
24:38 K: First of all, when there is anger,
at the moment of anger
24:44 there is no separation.
24:47 Right?
24:50 S: When you're very angry...
K: Of course.
24:53 S: ...what we normally say is
you lose control of yourself,
24:55 and the separation disappears,
you become the anger, yes.
24:59 K: At the moment when you are
really angry, there is no separation.
25:04 The separation only
takes place after.
25:09 'I have been angry'.
25:14 Now, why?
Why does this separation take place?
25:19 S: Through memory.
25:21 K: Through memory, right.
Because I have been angry before.
25:25 So, the past
is evaluating,
25:31 the past is
recognising it.
25:34 So, the past
is the observer.
25:40 B: That may not be obvious.
For example,
25:42 I may have physical reactions
that go out of control,
25:46 like sometimes the
hand or the body,
25:49 and I say, 'I am observing
those physical reactions
25:52 going out of control and I'd like to
bring them back in'.
25:55 I think somebody might feel
the same way,
25:58 that his mental reactions
are going out of control,
26:01 and that they have momentarily
escaped his control,
26:04 and he's trying
to bring them back in.
26:07 Now, that's the way it may look
or feel to many people.
26:14 K: So what?
26:17 B: Well, then it is not clear.
26:21 Have we made it clear
that that is not the case?
26:23 K: Sir, I am trying
to point out,
26:26 and I don't know
if I made myself clear:
26:30 when one is frightened,
26:35 there's no me
separate from fear.
26:43 K: When there is a time interval,
there is the division.
26:54 And time interval,
time is thought.
27:00 And when thought
comes in,
27:03 then begins the division.
27:06 Because thought
is memory,
27:11 the past.
27:13 S: Thought involves
memory - yes.
27:15 K: Yes, involves
memory, and so on.
27:17 So, thought, memory,
knowledge, is the past.
27:24 So, the past is
the observer
27:32 who says, 'I am different from fear,
I must control it'.
27:39 H: Let's go through this very slowly,
because it's seems like
27:42 the experience is that
the observer is the present.
27:46 It seems like he's saying,
'I'm here now,
27:49 and what am I going to do about this
the next time it comes up'.
27:52 K: Yes. But the 'what am I going
to do about it' is the response
27:59 of the past, because you have
already had that kind of experience.
28:05 Sir, haven't you had fear?
H: Surely.
28:12 K: Deep, you know, something,
a fear that has really shaken…
28:17 H: Yes.
K: ...devastating one.
28:20 H: Yes.
28:21 K: And at that second
there is no division,
28:27 you are entirely
consumed by that.
28:30 H: Yes.
28:33 K: Right?
H: Right.
28:35 K: Now, then thought comes along
and says, 'I've been afraid
28:42 because of this and because of that,
now I must defend myself,
28:46 rationalise fear' and so on,
so on, so on. It's so obvious.
28:50 What are we discussing?
H: OK.
28:54 B: I think, coming back again
to the physical reaction,
28:57 which can also consume you,
and at the next moment you say,
29:02 'I didn't notice it at the time'
thought comes in and says,
29:04 'That's a physical
29:06 K: Yes.
B: Now I know it,
29:08 what is the difference
of these two cases,
29:10 that in the second case
it would make sense to say,
29:13 'I know that I have reacted
this way before', right?
29:16 I can take such
and such an action.
29:22 K: I don't quite
follow this.
29:24 B: Somebody can feel that it's true,
I get overwhelmed by a reaction,
29:30 and thought comes in.
But in many areas
29:33 that's the normal procedure
for thought to come in.
29:35 If something shattering happens,
and then a moment later
29:40 you think, what was it? Right?
K: Yes.
29:43 In some cases that
would be correct, right?
29:45 K: Quite right.
29:47 B: Now, why is it
in this case it is not?
29:49 K: Ah, I see
what you mean.
29:52 Answer it, sir, you are…
Answer it.
30:02 You meet a rattler on a walk.
B: Yes.
30:08 K: Which I have done very often.
You meet a rattler,
30:14 it rattles,
and you jump.
30:18 That is physical,
30:22 intelligent response.
30:30 That's not fear.
30:35 B: Right. Not psychological fear.
K: What?
30:39 B: It has been called
a kind of fear.
30:41 K: I know, I don't call
that psychological fear.
30:43 B: No, it's not psychological fear,
it's a simple physical reaction...
30:47 K: Physical reaction...
B: ...of danger.
30:49 K: ...which is an intelligent reaction
not to be bitten by the rattler.
30:55 B: Yes, but a moment later
I can say, 'I know that's rattler'
30:59 or it's not a rattler,
I may discover it's not a rattler,
31:01 it's another snake
which is not so dangerous.
31:03 K: No, not so dangerous,
then I pass it by.
31:07 B: But then thought comes in
and it's perfectly all right.
31:10 K: Yes.
B: Right?
31:12 K: Yes.
31:14 B: But here, when I am angry
or frightened...
31:17 K: Then thought comes in.
B: And it's not all right.
31:20 K: It's not all right.
B: Yes.
31:22 K: Oh, I see what you
are trying to get at.
31:25 Why do I say
it is not all right?
31:31 Because fear is
31:37 it blocks one's mind, thought,
and all the rest of it,
31:42 one shrinks
in that fear.
31:44 B: Yes, I think I see that.
You mean that possibly that
31:47 when thought comes in,
it cannot possibly come in rationally
31:50 in the midst of fear, right?
K: Yes.
31:53 B: Is that what you mean?
K: That's what I'm trying to say.
31:55 B: So, in the case of physical danger,
it could still come in rationally.
31:58 K: Yes. Here it becomes irrational.
B: Yes.
32:01 K: Why, I am asking, why?
32:09 Why doesn't one
clear up all this awful mess?
32:17 H: Well, it isn't clear.
32:19 K: Look, sir, it is
a messy consciousness.
32:24 H: Yes, it's
a messy consciousness.
32:25 K: Messy consciousness,
32:28 H: Yes.
32:29 K: …frightened, so many fears, and
so on, it's a messy consciousness.
32:35 Now, why can't
we clear it up?
32:39 H: Well, it seems we are always
trying to clear it up after the fact.
32:42 K: No, I think the difficulty lies,
we don't recognise deeply
32:50 this messy
consciousness is me.
32:57 And if it is me,
I can't do anything!
33:02 I don't know
if you get the point.
33:05 S: You mean we think
that there's a me
33:08 separate from this
messy consciousness.
33:10 K: We think we are separate.
And therefore we are accustomed,
33:14 it is our conditioning,
to act upon it.
33:18 But I can't very well
do that
33:21 with all this messy consciousness
which is me.
33:27 So, the problem then arises,
what is action?
33:35 We are accustomed
to act
33:39 upon the messy
33:42 When there is realisation
of the fact
33:46 that I can't act,
because I am that.
33:53 H: Then what is action?
K: That is non-action.
33:58 H: OK.
34:00 K: Ah, that's not OK,
that is the total difference.
34:04 H: Yes, I think I understand.
On the one hand there's
34:07 the action of consciousness on itself
which just perpetuates things.
34:11 And seeing that,
then it ceases to act.
34:19 K: It's not non-violence.
34:22 S: Sorry, sir, you're saying that
normally we have the idea
34:27 that there's a self
which is somehow separate
34:29 from some of the contents
of our messy consciousness.
34:31 K: That's right,
that's right, sir.
34:32 S: If someone tells us
we're wonderful, we don't want
34:34 to be separate from that,
but if we feel afraid
34:36 and if somebody tells
we're awful,
34:38 we do want to be
separate from that.
34:40 K: Quite.
34:41 S: So, it's rather selective.
But nevertheless we do feel
34:44 there's something in us
which is separate from the contents
34:47 of this messy consciousness.
We normally act in such a way
34:51 as to change either the contents
of the consciousness,
34:56 or our relation to them, or our
relation to the world, and so on.
35:00 But we don't normally examine
this apparent separation
35:03 between the self, the me, and the
contents of the messy consciousness.
35:08 That's something we don't challenge.
Now, you're suggesting
35:12 that in fact, this separation,
which we can actually experience
35:16 and do, most of us
do experience,
35:20 is in fact something we ought
to challenge and look at,
35:24 and we ought
to face the idea
35:26 that we actually are
the messy consciousness
35:30 and nothing other.
K: Of course. It's so obvious.
35:32 S: Well, it isn't obvious,
it's very non-obvious,
35:34 and it's a very difficult thing
to realise, because
35:36 one's very much in the habit of
thinking one is separate from it.
35:39 K: So, it's our
35:41 can we move away
from our conditioning?
35:45 Our conditioning is me.
35:51 And then I act upon that
conditioning, separating myself.
35:56 But if I am that...
36:01 no action, which is
the most positive action.
36:07 H: The way that that would be
heard, I'm afraid, is that
36:11 if I don't act on it it's just
going to stay the way it is.
36:13 K: Ah!
36:16 S: You're suggesting that by
recognising this, there's a sort of
36:19 the process of recognising it,
facing up to...
36:23 K: It's not facing up. Who is to
face up? Not recognise.
36:28 Who is to recognise it? You see, we
are always thinking in those terms.
36:34 I am that, full stop.
36:41 We never come
to that realisation,
36:47 totally.
36:49 There is some part of me which
is clear, and that clarity is going
36:55 to act upon that
which is not clear.
37:00 Always this goes on.
37:02 S: Yes.
K: I am saying,
37:05 the whole content of one's
consciousness is unclear, messy.
37:10 There is no part of it
that's clear.
37:15 We think there is a part,
37:18 which is the observer,
separating himself from the mess.
37:27 So, the observer
is the observed.
37:34 Gurus, and all that.
37:38 B: You were raising
the question of action.
37:40 If that is the case,
how is action to take place?
37:53 K: When there is perception
of that which is true,
37:56 that very truth
is sufficient, it is finished.
38:00 B: Yes. You have said also,
for example, that
38:03 that mess itself realises
its own messiness,
38:07 right?
K: Yes. Messiness, it's finished.
38:13 S: Sir, are you suggesting,
the realisation of the messiness
38:17 itself in some way
dissolves the messiness?
38:19 K: Yes. Not a separative
realisation that I am messy.
38:29 The fact is
consciousness is messy, full stop.
38:34 And I can't act upon it.
38:39 Because previously acting upon it
was a wastage of energy.
38:46 Because I never
solved it.
38:50 I have struggled,
I have taken vows,
38:53 I have done all kinds of things
to resolve this messy stuff.
38:59 And it has never
been cleared.
39:02 It may partially,
39:04 H: Well, I think that's another
aspect of this. In therapy,
39:09 or in our own lives, we seem
to have insights that are partial,
39:15 that we clear up a particular
problem and gain some clarity
39:19 and order for a time.
39:22 And then the thing
39:24 in some other form or...
K: Yes, yes.
39:26 H: ...the same form.
39:30 You're suggesting that
the thing needs to be done
39:32 across the board in some way.
K: You see, sir,
39:35 before, the observer
acted upon it,
39:41 upon the messy
39:43 Right?
H: Yes.
39:44 K: Saying, 'I'll clear this up,
give me time', all the rest of it.
39:51 And that's a wastage of energy.
H: Right.
39:55 K: When the fact that you are that
- you are not wasting energy.
40:05 Which is attention. I don't know
if you want to go into this.
40:09 S: No, this is very interesting.
Please do.
40:16 K: Would we agree that acting
upon it is a wastage of energy?
40:25 H: Yes. This creates
more disorder.
40:29 K: No. It creates
more disorder,
40:31 and there is this constant conflict
between me and the not me.
40:39 The me who is
the observer,
40:42 and I battle with it, control it,
suppress it, anxious, worry,
40:49 you follow? Which is all
essentially wastage of energy.
40:56 Whereas, this messy
consciousness is me.
41:04 I have come to realise
that through attention.
41:11 Not 'I have come to realise', sorry.
B: Would you say that
41:14 the consciousness itself
has come to realise it?
41:17 K: Yes.
B: I mean, it's not me, right?
41:19 K: Yes.
41:21 Which is total attention
I am giving to this consciousness,
41:25 not 'I am' - there is
attention and inattention.
41:32 Inattention is
wastage of energy.
41:36 Attention is energy.
41:42 When there is observation
that consciousness is messy,
41:48 that fact can only exist
when there is total attention.
41:57 And when there is total attention,
it doesn't exist any more confusion.
42:05 It's only inattention
that creates the problems.
42:12 Refute it!
42:15 S: But, sir, I didn't
understand entirely...
42:18 This total attention
that you're talking about
42:20 would only be able
to have this effect
42:23 if it somehow
was something
42:25 completely in the present
and devoid of memory.
42:27 K: Of course, of course,
attention is that.
42:33 If I attend to what
you have said just now,
42:37 - devoid of memory,
which is attention -
42:42 I listen to you
not only with the sensual ear,
42:47 but with the other ear,
which is:
42:53 I am giving my whole attention
to find out what you are saying,
42:59 which is actually
in the present.
43:06 In attention
there is no centre.
43:14 S: Because the attention
and the thing attended to
43:16 become one, you mean.
43:19 You mean there's no centre
in the attention, because
43:22 the attention is all there is,
the thing attended to
43:25 and the attention
is all there is.
43:27 K: Ah, no, no. There is messiness,
because I have been inattentive.
43:35 Right?
S: Yes.
43:38 K: When there is the observation
of the fact that
43:44 the observer
is the observed,
43:49 and that state
of observation,
43:51 in which there is no observer
as the past, that is attention.
44:01 Sir, I don't know if you have gone
into the question
44:03 of meditation here.
That's another subject.
44:08 H: That may be
a relevant subject.
44:10 It seems that what you're
talking about may happen partially.
44:16 K: Ah! It can't happen, then you keep
partial mess and partial not mess.
44:24 We're back again
to the same position.
44:26 H: Yes.
44:28 S: But do you think this kind
of attention you're talking about
44:31 is the sort of thing that
many people experience
44:34 occasionally in moments of great
beauty, or occasionally a piece
44:38 of music they're really enjoying,
they lose themselves, and so on?
44:41 Do you think that many of us
have glimpses of this
44:44 in these kinds
of experiences?
44:46 K: That's it. That's it.
When I see a mountain,
44:52 the majesty, the dignity and
the depth of it drives away myself.
45:00 A child with a toy,
the toy absorbs him.
45:05 The mountain
has absorbed me,
45:08 toy has absorbed
the child.
45:12 I say, that means there
is something outside,
45:17 which will absorb me,
45:20 which will make
me peaceful.
45:22 Which means an outside agency
that'll keep me quiet
45:28 - God, prayer, looking up
to something or other.
45:34 If I reject an outside agency
45:41 nothing can absorb me.
45:44 Let's say, if you absorb me, when
you are gone I am back to myself.
45:50 H: Yes.
45:52 K: So, I discard any sense
of external agency
45:57 which will absorb me.
45:59 So I am left with myself,
that's my point.
46:02 H: I see. So you're suggesting
that when this happens partially
46:06 it's because we're depending
on something.
46:08 K: Yes, of course.
H: I see.
46:11 K: It's like my depending on my wife.
H: Or my therapist, or my problem.
46:16 K: Something or other.
H: Yes.
46:17 K: Like a Hindu, Catholic, or anybody,
they depend on something.
46:24 Therefore dependence
demands attachment.
46:29 H: Now, it's possible to listen
to you say this, and have the idea
46:33 of what you are talking
about, and try and do that.
46:36 K: Ah, you can't do it!
That means you are acting again.
46:41 You want something
out of it. In exchange,
46:46 I'll give you this, you give me that.
That's just a trade.
46:51 Here it's not like that,
you are enquiring into something
46:55 which demands
a great deal of thought,
46:58 great deal
of intelligence,
47:01 and attention that says,
'Look, why is there
47:04 this division,
this mess in the world?'
47:08 Because our consciousness is messy
and so the world is messy.
47:20 So, from that arises, is it possible
to be free of the self?
47:28 Consciousness, the messy
consciousness, is the self.
47:38 S: It is not possible to be free
from the contents of consciousness,
47:41 different experiences,
as long as my eyes are open,
47:44 I'm looking, I see all sorts
of different things.
47:47 Now, what you were saying
about the attention,
47:51 when one's looking at a mountain,
for example, are you suggesting
47:56 that if I have that
same kind of attention
47:59 to everything I experience,
that then this is the...
48:03 K: You see, again,
you experience.
48:06 S: Yes, well, all right, but...
K: But you are the experience.
48:11 S: Yes.
48:13 K: Right? That means,
there is no experience.
48:21 S: There's just
attention, you mean.
48:28 K: Experience involves
48:34 time, which is the past.
48:40 Therefore the experiencer
is the experienced.
48:46 If I seek illumination,
48:49 enlightenment, or whatever
you might like to call it,
48:55 I am then trying to do all kinds
of things to achieve that.
49:01 But I don't know
what illumination is. I don't know.
49:06 Not because you said it, or Buddha
said it, or somebody else said it,
49:10 I don't know.
But I am going to find out.
49:15 Which means the mind must be
totally free - from prejudice,
49:21 from fear, all the rest
of that messy business.
49:24 So, my concern is not
illumination, but whether
49:29 the content
of my consciousness
49:32 can be cleansed
- whatever word you use.
49:35 That's my concern
- not concern, that's my enquiry.
49:43 And as long as I am separate
from my consciousness
49:47 I can experience it,
I can analyse it,
49:49 I can tear it to pieces,
act upon it,
49:53 which means perpetual conflict
between me and my consciousness.
50:08 I wonder why
we accept all this.
50:16 Why do I accept
that I am a Hindu?
50:20 Why do I accept
that I am a Catholic?
50:24 You follow?
S: Yes.
50:26 K: Why do we accept
what other people say?
50:30 H: We say it ourselves.
50:33 K: Yes. No, not only
we say it ourselves,
50:36 but it's encouraged,
50:39 nourished
by people outside.
50:41 Why? Why do we accept?
50:44 He is a professor and he is
teaching me, I accept that.
50:51 Because he knows biology much more
than I do, I go to his class,
50:55 and I am being informed
by what he says.
50:58 But he's not my guru,
he's not my behaviour guide.
51:05 He is giving me information about
biology, and I am interested in it.
51:10 I want to study it,
I want to go out into the field
51:12 and do all kinds
of stuff.
51:15 But why do we
accept authority,
51:17 psychological authority,
51:20 spiritual - quote spiritual -
51:25 Again, we come
back to security.
51:28 I don't know what to do,
but you know better than I do;
51:31 you are my guru.
51:36 I refuse that position.
51:44 S: But don't we arrive
at the same set of problems,
51:46 if we start not from authority
but from responsibility;
51:53 say, I'm a father,
I have this child,
51:56 we've agreed
some time ago...
51:57 K: You have to instruct it,
of course.
51:59 S: You have to look after this baby.
K: Of course, of course.
52:01 S: Fine. But now, in order to feed
the baby you become preoccupied
52:05 with security, job, tenure,
you know, house...
52:08 K: Of course, of course.
S: ...protecting the house
52:10 against marauders, and so on.
K: Of course, of course.
52:12 S: Then you get into the same
lot of things about preoccupation
52:15 with security, starting not from
authority but from responsibility
52:18 for others, for children,
for example.
52:21 K: Of course.
52:23 S: So, then what is
the answer to that?
52:26 It's easy to say you should
reject responsibility.
52:28 K: Of course, I have money,
if I earn money, job, so on,
52:32 I have to look after myself.
If I have servants,
52:34 I have to look after servants,
my children,
52:37 perhaps their
children too.
52:41 I am responsible for all that.
S: Yes.
52:44 K: Physically I am responsible.
To give them food,
52:48 to give them the right
amount of money,
52:50 allow their children go to
a proper school, like my children
52:55 - I am responsible
for all that.
52:59 S: But isn't that going to bring
you back to the same position
53:03 of insecurity, and so on,
that you were trying to
53:08 dissolve by this rejection
of authority?
53:14 K: I don't see why I need
spiritual or psychological authority.
53:22 Because if I know
how to read myself,
53:24 I don't need anybody
to tell me.
53:29 But we have never attempted
deeply to read the book of myself.
53:36 I come to you and say,
'Please, help me to read.'
53:40 And then the whole
thing is lost.
53:43 H: But I think what
Rupert is asking is that
53:46 if we start by assuming
responsibility for other people,
53:54 that entails...
K: What? My earning capacity?
53:59 H: Which must be secure.
K: Yes, secure as much as possible.
54:05 Not in countries where there's
tremendous unemployment.
54:08 H: So, you're saying that that doesn't
entail any psychological insecurity.
54:11 K: No, of course not.
But when I say, 'He's my servant,
54:15 I'm going to keep him
in that place,' you follow?
54:19 H: No. Tell me more.
K: I mean, I treat him as a servant.
54:23 H: Yes.
54:25 K: Which becomes irresponsible
- I don't know… naturally.
54:31 H: But if it's a servant, he can
come and go. But if it's a child,
54:36 he can't come and go.
K: Ah! He's part of my family.
54:39 B: I think the question is
something like this: suppose,
54:41 you are responsible for a family
and the conditions are difficult,
54:45 you may not have a job, and
you may start to worry about,
54:47 and become insecure
54:49 K: Yes.
B: Right?
54:51 K: I don't worry about it, there
it is, I have no more money.
54:54 So, my friend, I have no more money,
if you want to stay,
54:57 share the little food I have,
we'll share it.
55:02 B: You're saying that even if you are
unemployed and you are responsible
55:05 for a family, it will not disturb
the order of the mind, right?
55:09 K: Of course, not.
55:10 B: You will find an intelligent way
to solve it.
55:12 K: Deal with it.
B: Yes.
55:15 S: But this kind of worry as a result
of responsibility is relative.
55:18 K: I don't call it worry.
I am responsible.
55:22 S: Yes.
55:24 K: And therefore I look after
as much as I can.
55:27 S: And if you can't?
K: Sorry?
55:31 S: If you can't?
K: I can't.
55:34 Why should I worry and bother
- I can't, it's a fact.
55:40 B: You're saying that it's possible
to be completely free of worry,
55:43 for example, in the face
of great difficulties.
55:46 K: Yes. There is no…
You see, that's what I am saying.
55:51 Where there is attention, there
is no need to… there is no worry,
55:57 because there is no centre
from which you are attending.
56:02 S: There are still problems,
and there may still be
56:05 responsibilities
that one has.
56:06 K: Of course, I have problems,
so I resolve them.
56:09 S: But if you can't
resolve them.
56:11 K: Then I can't.
S: If your family is starving.
56:13 K: I can't. Why should I worry about
it? I can't be Queen of England.
56:17 S: No.
56:18 K: No. So, why should I
worry about it?
56:20 S: But if you're a poor Indian,
56:22 your family is starving,
there's nothing you can…
56:24 You've tried everything,
you've failed.
56:27 You don't worry.
Actually, surprisingly enough,
56:29 a lot of poor Indians in just
that situation don't worry -
56:32 that's the most amazing thing
about India.
56:35 But then, of course, people coming
along looking from outside say,
56:38 'Well, this is fatalism'.
K: Yes, that's right.
56:40 S: And it's often regarded as the
disease of India, the very fact
56:43 that so many people manage not
to worry in those circumstances,
56:46 to the degree that
we would expect.
56:48 K: I'd like to ask you a question.
You've listened to all this
56:52 - messy consciousness -
56:58 does one realise it,
and empty the content,
57:04 fear, you know,
the whole business?
57:08 Does it interest you?
H: Yes.
57:11 K: Totally?
H: Yes.
57:13 K: That means what?
57:16 H: It means you
just listen.
57:18 K: No, it means a conversation,
dialogue between us.
57:25 Penetrating deeper,
and deeper, and deeper.
57:30 Which means you must be
free to examine.
57:37 Free from your prejudice,
from your previous experience.
57:45 Of course, otherwise you can't
examine. You can't investigate.
57:49 'Investigare'
means explore,
57:51 you know, push it, push it,
push it further and further.
57:58 Now, are you, are we
willing to do that,
58:02 so that actually
the self is not?
58:14 But when the self is not, it
doesn't mean you neglect your wife,
58:19 your children - you follow?
58:21 That becomes so silly,
it's like becoming a sannyasi,
58:26 going off
to the mountains,
58:29 a monk going off
into a monastery.
58:33 That's an
extraordinary escape.
58:38 The fact is I have to deal
with my wife and children,
58:41 and if I have,
a servant.
58:45 Can I be so totally
without the self
58:51 that I can intelligently
deal with these problems?