Krishnamurti Subtitles

Ojai - 13 May 1982

Public Question & Answer 4



0:40 This is the last question
and answer meeting.
  
0:49 Again, there have been
so many questions handed in
  
0:52 and we cannot answer all of them.
 
1:05 I really would like to ask
a question of you, if I may.
  
1:13 You have put so many questions
for the speaker to answer,
  
1:20 the speaker would like
to ask you a question,
  
1:28 and I hope you don't mind.
 
1:33 Why is it, being so educated,
living in an affluent society,
  
1:50 with marvellous land, with forests,
rivers, great mountains,
  
1:59 why is it
that you do not change?
  
2:07 I think that’s a very important
question to put.
  
2:13 Why is it
that we are so indifferent
  
2:21 – not to outward responses,
 
2:29 but to something deep, abiding,
 
2:37 something that is worthwhile?
 
2:43 Why is it that we don’t change?
 
2:49 This has been a question
 
2:53 the speaker has been concerned with
wherever he goes.
  
3:02 There are large audiences, small
discussions, interviews and so on,
  
3:12 and at the end of the journey
there are so very, very few
  
3:18 who deeply bring about a radical
transformation in themselves.
  
3:28 They are very friendly,
there are social workers,
  
3:35 some are politicians, some are
some of the well-known gurus.
  
3:48 They all seem to follow
the same old pattern,
  
3:56 outwardly demanding
certain political changes,
  
4:06 to stop a particular kind of war,
 
4:13 to have a little more money
and so on.
  
4:19 But deeply
in their relationships,
  
4:29 in their enquiry they go up to a
certain point and there it ends. Why?
  
4:42 I leave that question with you,
 
4:44 and we’ll answer these questions
and I’ll pick up that question again
  
4:51 at the end of the several questions
that have been put.
  
5:03 First Question: 'One sees that chaos
in the world is rapidly increasing.
  
5:11 Billions are being spent on arms,
social justice is being eroded,
  
5:18 governments,
both totalitarian and democratic
  
5:22 are increasingly aggressive,
and violent.
  
5:26 Though one sees the necessity of much
deeper fundamental human change,
  
5:34 could the speaker comment on the issue
of active political involvement?'
  
5:43 'One sees that chaos in the world
is rapidly increasing.
  
5:48 Billions are being spent on arms,
social justice is being eroded,
  
5:55 governments,
both totalitarian and democratic,
  
5:59 are increasingly aggressive,
and violent.
  
6:04 Though one sees the necessity of much
deeper fundamental human change,
  
6:11 could the speaker comment on the issue
of active political involvement?'
  
6:20 Am I Democratic or Republican,
is that it?
  
6:27 Apart from joking,
why, if one may ask,
  
6:34 why do we have such great confidence
in political leaders?
  
6:47 It is the same issue
in all the countries
  
6:54 – in France, in England,
here, in India, and so on. Why?
  
7:01 We put such confidence
in the economists,
  
7:05 in the politicians, in the leaders.
Why do we do this?
  
7:16 And what do we mean
by political action?
  
7:26 Please, we are enquiring together,
 
7:28 you are not just
listening to the speaker,
  
7:33 waiting for his explanation
and answer.
  
7:38 We are thinking together
over this problem
  
7:45 which is really
a very serious problem,
  
7:48 which is affecting
the whole of mankind.
  
7:56 Some political group, Democratic,
comes into power
  
8:06 – Conservative or Labour,
or Republican or Democrats –
  
8:16 and they seem to have
such extraordinary power,
  
8:20 position and authority,
and we follow them.
  
8:25 They tell us what to do
and we accept them.
  
8:29 Why is it that sense of trust in them
and accepting their judgements.
  
8:41 We are sent to war, according
to some rulers, government officials,
  
8:49 and thousands are being killed;
 
8:54 because a majority has voted them
into power, position and direction
  
9:07 and we merely like sheep
follow them.
  
9:11 Generally they appeal
to our lowest instincts,
  
9:16 to our national pride, honour
and all that business.
  
9:23 And
we are stimulated by all that
  
9:27 and we are willing to kill others
for this, for a piece of land.
  
9:32 Why?
Why do we trust them?
  
9:40 Please, you answer this question.
 
9:46 And what do we mean
by political action
  
9:50 which is different
from all other actions?
  
9:57 Why do we separate politics
from our daily living?
  
10:07 Why do we separate
a political activity of the left,
  
10:12 right, centre,
or extreme left, extreme right?
  
10:21 Why, if one may ask,
 
10:27 why is political action
so very different
  
10:33 from our action of relationship,
 
10:39 action with regard to fear
in ourselves, and so on?
  
10:46 Or is politics part of our life,
not something separate.
  
10:54 The politics,
as we explained the other day,
  
10:58 according to the common usage,
which is in the dictionary,
  
11:04 is the art of government,
science of government.
  
11:13 Why do we give this art
to the politician?
  
11:23 They apparently are a separate breed,
different from us.
  
11:33 This is really a question
that involves,
  
11:38 why do we depend
on a politician, a guru,
  
11:43 a priest,
on anybody to govern us?
  
11:51 Please answer this question.
 
11:58 Why do specialists
take charge of our life?
  
12:07 Is it that we have no so-called
confidence in ourselves?
  
12:18 We are not sure of ourselves,
 
12:23 and we attribute this clarity
to the politicians and to the others.
  
12:33 Is it in ourselves
that we are insufficient
  
12:42 and somebody out there
is going to make us sufficient?
  
12:54 So, are we to treat life
as separate factors:
  
13:04 political, religious, economic,
and so on?
  
13:10 There is a new noise today.
 
13:15 Or, are we to treat life as a whole?
Please, regard, question this.
  
13:26 The questioner asks, what political
action is there that one can take?
  
13:37 The questioner perhaps
 
13:40 – one may be misjudging him,
if one is, please forgive us –
  
13:48 is that action, political,
different from religious action,
  
14:00 from the action of an idealist,
 
14:07 or does one treat life,
the whole living,
  
14:15 learning in colleges,
universities, schools,
  
14:26 relationship, fears, faith,
anxiety, and political action
  
14:33 – isn’t that a whole way of living?
Am I conveying this?
  
14:47 Is it that we are
so fragmented in ourselves
  
14:53 – as a religious action,
political action, family action,
  
15:01 individual action, collective action
– you follow?
  
15:10 Or do we treat life
as a total movement
  
15:16 in which all these activities
are included.
  
15:20 But if we separate
one from the other,
  
15:24 we’ll inevitably
bring about contradiction.
  
15:31 A religious life is incompatible,
one will say, with political life.
  
15:39 A religious person will have
no part with politics,
  
15:43 because generally politics
is such a crooked affair,
  
15:50 controlled
by big industrialists,
  
15:55 by wanting great deal
of money for the party,
  
16:00 and they’re depending on rich people
and so on.
  
16:08 So how do we, each one of us,
answer this question?
  
16:17 There is increase of armaments.
 
16:23 Just now they are destroying
each other,
  
16:26 killing each other for
– God knows for what.
  
16:35 And both the democratic world
and the totalitarian world
  
16:43 are becoming, as the questioner says,
more and more aggressive.
  
16:51 So how do you deal
with this question?
  
16:56 It’s very easy to put questions.
 
17:03 Very easy to put a question and
try to find an answer from another.
  
17:12 But if we have to answer
this question ourselves,
  
17:17 taking what is actually
going on in the world:
  
17:21 the national, religious,
economic divisions, wars,
  
17:30 tremendous spending of money
on armaments
  
17:39 – what’s your answer?
How would you answer this question?
  
17:51 If you are Americans, we’ll say,
‘Our way is the best way’, and so on.
  
17:59 Or, would you consider
the right answer, the true answer is,
  
18:06 that we cannot separate
these activities
  
18:10 but treat life
as a whole movement?
  
18:19 And what is a political action?
 
18:27 Would you like to start a new party,
social democratic party?
  
18:40 Or, look for a new leader
for the next election,
  
18:48 condemn the present leader,
 
18:51 and when the new leader
comes into being next election,
  
18:56 again there is doubt about him
– you know,
  
18:59 when the honeymoon is over
then begins the whole problem.
  
19:04 So, what is your answer?
 
19:10 Please, sir,
go into it for yourselves.
  
19:14 What is your answer
when you have thought it out deeply?
  
19:21 Do you want to ask
if there is an activity,
  
19:28 if there is action
which is not divisible,
  
19:38 an action that includes politics,
religion, economics, everything
  
19:47 – the whole bundle of life.
 
19:53 And is that possible?
 
20:06 One sees corruption
right through the world
  
20:15 – black market, rich people
getting tremendously more rich,
  
20:26 the privileged classes,
and so on.
  
20:34 Where do you begin
 
20:40 to bring about an action
that will include all actions?
  
20:50 Where do you begin?
 
20:56 To go very far,
one must begin very near.
  
21:02 Right?
 
21:10 So what is very near?
 
21:14 Me. I am the nearest person,
so I begin
  
21:23 – not as a selfish activity,
or self-centred movement –
  
21:30 I am the nearest, or I am the centre
from which I start,
  
21:40 not out there.
 
21:44 Can I live a life
that is absolutely not broken up?
  
21:58 A religious life separate
from all other lives, activities,
  
22:02 but a life
that is political, religious
  
22:07 – you follow? Can I live that way?
 
22:20 That implies, does it not,
 
22:29 do I understand the whole
separative activity completely,
  
22:40 and in the comprehension
of the separate activities
  
22:46 which then become contradictory,
conflicting, endless divisions
  
22:55 – if I understand that
very clearly,
  
22:58 perceive it not in abstraction
or as an ideal or intellectually,
  
23:06 but as a factual thing.
 
23:09 From that observation one will act
which will be complete.
  
23:21 Have I answered the question?
 
23:26 If you are actually wanting
to start a political action,
  
23:32 new party, new group,
new leader of your own,
  
23:37 then I am afraid you and I won’t meet,
we are back into the same old pattern.
  
23:45 But we are saying, a life that is
complete, sufficient psychologically,
  
23:59 from that quality of mind and heart,
then all action is included in that.
  
24:19 Second Question: 'You say that out
of the negative comes the positive.
  
24:25 How does one negate the ‘I’
without suppression
  
24:33 or denial or without conflict?
 
24:38 Who is that which does the negating?
Can you go into this problem?'
  
24:45 'You say that out of the negative
comes the positive.
  
24:52 How does one negate the ‘I’
without suppression
  
24:57 or denial or without conflict?
 
25:02 Who is that which does the negating?
Can you go into this problem?'
  
25:13 You are going to go into this problem,
not the speaker.
  
25:26 What is positive action?
 
25:30 And what is negative action?
 
25:34 The positive action is,
I must do that, I will do that,
  
25:40 this is right, this is wrong,
 
25:45 or what is considered positive
following certain idealistic cause
  
25:53 which will eventually bring about
a different world and so on
  
25:58 – the positive action,
positive thinking
  
26:02 as the evangelists
and others propagate.
  
26:09 Positive thinking.
 
26:12 And what is negative thinking?
 
26:21 To think of others badly?
 
26:28 I don’t know
what negative thinking is, really.
  
26:32 Thinking is in itself is negative,
 
26:35 but it doesn’t matter,
we’ll go into it.
  
26:41 So the questioner wants to know
whether the self,
  
26:50 the essence of selfishness,
the self-centred activity,
  
26:56 can be denied
without suppression,
  
27:04 without conflict,
without any form of evasion.
  
27:13 That is the question.
 
27:18 We are not saying
that you must negate the 'I'.
  
27:22 How can you negate the I?
 
27:27 And who is it, as the questioner says,
who negates or asserts?
  
27:38 When you say ‘I am’, who is it
that says ‘I am’ aggressively?
  
27:47 And who is it that says,
‘I am not’?
  
27:51 Both the positive and the negative,
who is it?
  
27:58 Go on, sirs.
 
28:07 Is there a separate consciousness,
a separate state of mind,
  
28:14 a separate clarity
in our consciousness?
  
28:22 You follow all my questions?
 
28:24 Is there some element of clarity
in this messy consciousness
  
28:36 – messy, conflicting, aggressive,
 
28:40 with their fears, faith, beliefs,
superstitions, anxious – all that.
  
28:48 In that confusion
which is our consciousness,
  
28:53 is there a spot of clarity
which then can say, 'I will direct,
  
29:03 I won’t suppress, I will change
this whole confusion.'
  
29:08 Do you understand my question?
Is there? Please answer.
  
29:19 If one is terribly
honest with oneself,
  
29:23 doesn’t want to deceive oneself
 
29:27 or accept some comforting idea,
or merely follow some tradition,
  
29:39 then you will say there is a field
in this messy consciousness
  
29:48 that is clear, unconfused,
 
29:54 and that will bring about clarity
in the whole field of confusion.
  
30:07 You understand my question?
 
30:10 This is the old, very old story,
that there is,
  
30:17 according to the Hindus
in the Asiatic world,
  
30:22 a certain entity
apart from all this
  
30:31 – they call it Atman, God,
or what you like –
  
30:36 who is witnessing all this,
and seeing all this,
  
30:45 through various forms of assertions,
conflicts and so on,
  
30:52 will ultimately free the mind
from the confusion. Right?
  
30:59 And probably here too,
in the Western world,
  
31:04 there is this idea of permanent soul,
whatever that may mean,
  
31:10 who is gradually asserting himself
and will ultimately go to heaven.
  
31:23 These are all very comforting
utilitarian theories.
  
31:33 But they have not so far cleared
man’s confusion, man’s conflict,
  
31:44 his agonies, his loneliness,
his depression, and so on.
  
31:50 So, why not try –
 
31:55 when you are all
so practical in the West
  
31:57 and the East is also trying to copy
you by becoming very practical
  
32:05 – why not see that
this is so utterly impractical,
  
32:14 the god within you, or the soul
within you, or the clarity within you
  
32:20 which will wipe away
this confusion so easily.
  
32:28 If that is not practical,
as it is not, apparently,
  
32:33 because it has not succeeded
 
32:37 – succeeded in the sense, please let’s
be clear in the usage of that word,
  
32:42 succeeded, not to be something
in this world,
  
32:46 to have more money and so on –
 
32:48 succeeded in bringing about
complete comprehension,
  
32:55 the ending of conflict and so on.
 
32:59 As it has not,
let’s look at it differently.
  
33:07 That means one must deny this,
negate this.
  
33:18 That’s going against
all your religious tradition
  
33:30 – the Bible, the soul.
 
33:34 You understand what I am saying?
– negating all that.
  
33:39 Then if you do,
then we can look at it differently,
  
33:43 but if you have slight attachment
to all that, conscious or unconscious,
  
33:54 then you will not look
for anything else.
  
34:06 So, first of all,
what is the self, the ‘I’?
  
34:19 All the attributes,
all the tendencies,
  
34:27 the various forms
of idiosyncrasies,
  
34:36 various beliefs,
the various hurts,
  
34:46 the conflict in relationship,
fear, loneliness, agony,
  
34:55 seeking some illusive security,
suffering – all that –
  
35:04 the name, the form,
is the ‘you’.
  
35:09 Right? Or do you doubt that?
 
35:16 If you doubt it
– one should –
  
35:20 then when you doubt something
 
35:23 it means you must examine,
not just doubt.
  
35:31 If you doubt that there is God
– doubt,
  
35:34 I am not saying you should –
if you doubt it,
  
35:38 then you must enquire
if there is such a thing.
  
35:43 But merely to doubt, say,
well... – has no meaning.
  
35:50 Scepticism has great value,
 
35:55 but if you are merely sceptic
all the time, what’s the point,
  
35:58 it’s like being illusory, caught in
an illusion, they are both the same.
  
36:06 So where there is doubt there is also
the movement of enquiry.
  
36:19 So we are enquiring together.
 
36:23 This ‘I’, this separatist activity,
so-called individual,
  
36:31 which is the essence of the ‘I’
 
36:36 – and the questioner wants to know
how to negate that,
  
36:41 the very whole activity of me
– my possessions,
  
36:49 my qualities, my aggression,
you follow, the whole of that –
  
36:57 how is one to negate it?
 
37:04 Now, the questioner asks that:
how to negate it.
  
37:09 Then he goes on to ask,
who is it that negates? You follow?
  
37:15 First he said
tell me how to negate it,
  
37:18 then he says, who is it that negates.
 
37:24 You follow? I wonder
if you understand this.
  
37:32 So we are not negating it.
 
37:36 We are trying to find out
what it has done in the world first,
  
37:43 this self-centred egotistic activity,
what it has done in the world,
  
37:50 and see the reality of it,
the actuality of it,
  
37:58 and then enquire who is it that is
acting all the time from the centre.
  
38:11 You understand my question?
 
38:14 It is not that we are
negating the self,
  
38:18 but that the activity
of the self in the world,
  
38:25 what it has done in the world,
what it has done in the family,
  
38:30 in the group, in the community, in
the nation, in the world, and so on,
  
38:36 and seeing the reality of it,
 
38:39 not the idea of
what it has done in the world,
  
38:44 but the actual happening,
the actual activity of it,
  
38:52 and from there
– which is our criteria –
  
38:58 from there enquire if that self,
 
39:02 which is creating
such mischief in the world,
  
39:07 can that self be looked at?
You follow?
  
39:14 Then we will enquire, what is it
that is looking at the self?
  
39:20 It is the same question
put differently.
  
39:23 So, first, what has it done
in the world?
  
39:31 I don’t have to answer
that question, obviously.
  
39:35 It has separated itself
into nations, into communities,
  
39:45 into various forms
of social divisions,
  
39:52 it has divided itself
from the rest of the community,
  
39:57 society, world, as the family,
and from the family, the ‘me’:
  
40:06 my aggression, my happiness,
my pursuit, and so on.
  
40:13 It has brought about
division in the world,
  
40:18 because it said, in that division
as my particular belief,
  
40:26 my particular religion,
my particular faith,
  
40:29 in that faith, in that belief,
in that dogma
  
40:33 I will be secure, I will be safe.
 
40:39 Right?
Are you following all this?
  
40:45 So it has created vast division,
incredible divisions,
  
40:57 and so where there is division
there must be conflict.
  
41:04 So the 'I', which is the creator
of this division,
  
41:10 which is the essence of conflict
– right? –
  
41:17 can that 'I' come to an end?
 
41:22 Not suppressing, not evading,
not avoiding, and so on.
  
41:29 Can that 'I' which has done
all this mischief,
  
41:33 all these terrible
things in the world
  
41:38 – separate gods,
 
41:48 it has brought about
a million wars, thousands of wars.
  
41:57 Is that a fact?
For you, not for me.
  
42:03 Is that a fact?
Or is it an exaggeration?
  
42:09 Or is it some kind of concept,
 
42:14 and you are adjusting yourself
to that concept?
  
42:23 That is, we think war is cruel,
and therefore the ‘I’ must be
  
42:29 – you follow?
 
42:31 First conceive an idea,
then adjust ourselves to that idea.
  
42:38 We are saying, observe what is
happening in the world without bias,
  
42:45 without any partiality,
 
42:50 and you see what the ‘I’,
 
42:52 the so-called individual expansion,
the individual aggression,
  
42:58 the individual success,
what it has done in the world.
  
43:05 If you are very clear on that point,
then we say, now,
  
43:13 seeing what cruelties, bestiality
is brought about in the world,
  
43:20 can this movement
which is the ‘me’,
  
43:26 can this movement ever stop
or radically change?
  
43:37 When you have put
that question to yourself,
  
43:42 then who is it that is
to bring about a change?
  
43:48 The questioner says that.
 
43:50 Who is it that will end
this self-centred activity. Right?
  
44:01 That is what the questioner
is saying.
  
44:07 That is, we have to go
much deeper into that,
  
44:10 which is,
is there a difference
  
44:16 from the observer
and the thing he observes?
  
44:28 Please just listen to it.
Don’t agree or disagree or say,
  
44:32 ‘Oh, you are repeating the old stuff.
I have heard this last year
  
44:37 – or two years ago,
or twenty years ago –
  
44:39 you are repeating,
move out of that rut.'
  
44:48 We’ll move out of that rut.
 
44:53 It is not a rut,
but you may call it a rut.
  
45:00 When you observe a tree,
that thing,
  
45:07 can you look at it
without the word first?
  
45:13 Or when you look at it,
the instant response is,
  
45:17 that’s a tree, oak tree
or whatever it is.
  
45:22 Can you look at it
without the word?
  
45:28 Word being the symbol,
the idea, the memory,
  
45:36 which uses the word as the tree.
You follow?
  
45:43 Experiment for a minute,
for a second or two
  
45:47 to look at that thing
which is around you now.
  
46:00 And when you so look
without the word,
  
46:04 because we are caught
in a network of words.
  
46:13 I don’t know if one realises that.
 
46:22 The word, the symbol
has taken the place of reality.
  
46:28 When you say, ‘My wife’,
you have the complete picture.
  
46:38 Or my husband or my son,
my country, the flag,
  
46:46 and when you use the word
‘Communist’, it is – you follow? –
  
46:51 the whole intonation, the quality,
what is behind that word.
  
47:02 And when you say,
I am an American,
  
47:04 or I believe in God, I don’t
believe in God – you follow? –
  
47:09 this vast network of words in which
the mind lives, the brain lives.
  
47:16 I don’t know if you have noticed
all this. I hope it interests you.
  
47:20 The questioner asks it,
 
47:23 if you are not interested,
it is a nice day.
  
47:31 Does one realise that?
 
47:35 That one can never look at a thing,
living thing, or a dead thing
  
47:42 or a thing that is moving
 
47:47 – always with a word.
 
47:51 To look at a river,
at the flowing water,
  
47:59 not call it the Mississippi or Thames
or the Ganges, or the Nile
  
48:05 – just look at the moving water.
 
48:10 It has
quite a different quality.
  
48:19 Now, so can you observe
 
48:23 – not you observe, sorry –
 
48:28 is there an observation
of the movement of the self
  
48:39 which is anger, bitterness,
hurt,
  
48:42 just to look at all that
without the word.
  
48:50 Are you following all this?
 
48:55 The word is the past. Right?
 
49:01 The word indicates
the content of the past.
  
49:13 ‘My wife’ – I am taking
an ordinary example – my wife.
  
49:19 When you use ‘my wife’
see the content of that word,
  
49:25 the enormous implications of various
incidents, accidents, ideas, hurt
  
49:32 – all that in the past. Right?
 
49:36 And that word ‘my wife’ indicates
the tremendous content of the past.
  
49:49 But, can you look at the woman or the
man without the past, to look at her?
  
50:01 Go on, sir, do it, don’t listen to me,
there’s no point in listening to me
  
50:06 if you are not applying,
if you are not doing it.
  
50:15 So first of all we are asking,
 
50:19 is there an observation
of the whole movement of the self,
  
50:25 which we have described
both outwardly and inwardly,
  
50:28 can you look at that
– no –
  
50:32 is there an observation
of that without the past?
  
50:38 You get it? You understand
what I am talking about?
  
50:45 Look, I have lived 80 years or more
– 87 years.
  
50:55 A man who has lived 87 years
has collected lots of experience,
  
51:03 lots of ideas,
met lots of people.
  
51:07 There are all these past memories
throbbing away.
  
51:17 And either he is an idiot
to live in the past, or
  
51:30 – memory with this person
being very, very selective –
  
51:37 not live in the past
but watch things are happening:
  
51:45 to observe without the observer,
which is the past.
  
51:50 Have you got it?
Am I making it clear?
  
51:53 To observe.
 
51:58 To observe one’s reactions
 
52:07 without naming it
as jealousy, as anger
  
52:16 – just to observe.
 
52:18 When you so observe,
what happens?
  
52:26 Go into it, sir,
I hope you are doing this,
  
52:29 not just listening or getting bored
with the damn stuff.
  
52:36 If you are listening,
we are asking a question, which is:
  
52:42 when there is an observation
without direction, without motive,
  
52:48 which is the past,
what happens?
  
52:55 Now, to find out
what happens, actually,
  
53:00 you must enquire what takes place
when you are directing it,
  
53:09 when you are remembering it,
your reactions,
  
53:13 or giving direction
to your reactions.
  
53:16 That is, there is a separation
between the observer and the observed.
  
53:22 Then there is a division
and hence a conflict
  
53:28 – I must not do this/I must do that,
this is right/this is wrong,
  
53:33 I say this is right according
to my motive – and so on.
  
53:41 So,
when there is an observation
  
53:46 that where there is division
there must inevitably be conflict,
  
53:53 outwardly and psychologically,
that is absolute fact.
  
54:01 When I call myself British
or American, and I am willing
  
54:07 – you follow, the whole thing
you’ve right in front of you.
  
54:11 You are willing to destroy
thousands of people,
  
54:15 spend enormous sums of money
to do something
  
54:20 which your national pride
or some nonsense dictates.
  
54:29 So, can this conflict
in the human mind,
  
54:34 which is your mind, it is not my mind
– the human mind,
  
54:38 which is in constant travail,
constant conflict –
  
54:44 we are enquiring
whether that conflict can end.
  
54:52 It can end only completely when the
observer is not, only observation is.
  
55:06 Is the thinker
different from thought?
  
55:11 Look at it.
 
55:12 Is the thinker different from
the thought which he has created?
  
55:23 The thinker says, I am a Catholic,
Protestant, Hindu,
  
55:27 I am a Democrat, totalitarian
– whatever it is.
  
55:31 The thinker says that.
 
55:34 But the thinker has created
 
55:39 the Democrat, the Republican,
 
55:41 the left, far left, far right,
far centre, and so on
  
55:45 – the thinker has done that.
 
55:48 And is the thinker
different from his thoughts?
  
55:53 Oh, come on, sir,
this is so simple.
  
55:55 Obviously not.
But we have divided it. Right?
  
56:02 So look at another question: is the
experiencer different from experience?
  
56:10 Ah, this is, now you – I am glad.
Now you are caught!
  
56:20 We all want experiences:
going to the moon,
  
56:28 experience of God,
experience of a dozen kinds
  
56:32 – of sex, experience of going to the
Himalayas and climbing the Everest
  
56:38 – you follow? – experiences.
 
56:41 Now we are asking, is the experiencer
different from his experience?
  
56:55 Experiencer must recognise
the experience. Right?
  
57:03 Right?
Otherwise it is not an experience.
  
57:08 You follow all this?
 
57:12 Am I talking
some strange language?
  
57:17 I experience – what? –
a motor accident,
  
57:28 I have an experience
in an accident in a car,
  
57:34 and that is recorded as pleasant,
unpleasant, as hurt, and so on,
  
57:43 the expense of it, and so on,
that is recorded. Right?
  
57:50 The experience of that thing
is remembered,
  
57:58 and that experience is a memory
which is different from that
  
58:04 which has happened last year.
Right?
  
58:10 So the observer is that experience
of last year. Right?
  
58:19 Oh, come on, sir.
 
58:22 And that experiencer either wants to
avoid future incidents of that kind,
  
58:33 or if he is prone to accidents,
he’s inviting them.
  
58:44 We are asking, is the experiencer
different from the experience?
  
58:53 Of course not.
 
58:56 I have invented God,
 
59:02 and I am going to experience
that marvellous state. Right?
  
59:08 I have visions of – if I you are
a Christian, the Virgin Mary,
  
59:12 if I was a Buddhist,
I would have an experience
  
59:16 of various types
of Buddhist consciousness,
  
59:19 or if I’m a Hindu – you follow?
 
59:23 Being conditioned
to a particular tradition,
  
59:29 which is the past, I experience that.
Oh, come on, sir.
  
59:37 I have projected that
and I experience that.
  
59:44 So the experiencer
is the experience.
  
59:53 And if there is no experience,
what is the state of mind?
  
1:00:00 Do you understand
all these questions?
  
1:00:04 We are all wanting experiences,
 
1:00:08 and when one actually
goes into it very, very deeply,
  
1:00:16 experience, we hope,
will bring about more knowledge,
  
1:00:21 more clarity,
more this and more that,
  
1:00:25 but the experiencer
is the experience,
  
1:00:28 therefore the mind is no longer
seeking any experience.
  
1:00:39 Only such a mind is absolutely clear,
it requires no challenge.
  
1:00:49 That’s a different thing.
 
1:00:55 So, is there pure observation
of the movement of the self?
  
1:01:08 Because in that the self is
not different from the observer,
  
1:01:14 there is only observation,
 
1:01:19 without the past accumulated memories
interfering with observation.
  
1:01:31 When the past memories and
accumulated knowledge interfere,
  
1:01:37 then there is
wastage of energy.
  
1:01:41 I don’t know
if you are following all this.
  
1:01:44 Wastage of energy in conflict,
in denying, in suppressing,
  
1:01:48 in arguing why should I,
rationalising the whole business,
  
1:01:52 which is a form of conflict.
 
1:01:56 Now, that’s a wastage of energy.
 
1:02:02 Whereas when there is observation
without the past,
  
1:02:06 all energy
is brought into being,
  
1:02:11 all energy comes in that observation,
which dispels that which is observed.
  
1:02:18 It’s up to you,
I’ve said it in ten different ways.
  
1:02:21 So there is no conflict with the self,
or denial of the self,
  
1:02:27 or suppression of the self.
 
1:02:30 It is clarity of observation, which is
the greatest form of intelligence.
  
1:02:41 What time is it?
 
1:02:47 Good lord,
there are about nine questions
  
1:02:51 – I’ve only answered two questions.
 
1:03:02 Third Question: 'How does one
not become a victim
  
1:03:04 while not becoming a predator?'
 
1:03:08 'How does one not become a victim
while not becoming a predator?'
  
1:03:14 That is, how does one stop exploiting
without being exploited? Right?
  
1:03:25 It’s the same question, isn’t it?
 
1:03:29 I don’t want to exploit you,
but you are exploiting me.
  
1:03:36 You actually are. You follow?
 
1:03:43 It is the same
– very interesting, this question.
  
1:03:53 How do I – no –
 
1:03:56 the unconditioning of the mind doesn’t
become another form of conditioning.
  
1:04:05 You have understood?
 
1:04:11 There is a movement away
from this trap,
  
1:04:17 and not be caught in another trap.
 
1:04:26 I am a Hindu, I say it’s absurd
and become a Catholic.
  
1:04:33 Or I am a Catholic and say,
what silly stuff
  
1:04:37 and I join Hinduism or Buddhism,
or become a Muslim.
  
1:04:43 It is the same phenomena
– you understand?
  
1:04:47 So one has to enquire,
what is freedom?
  
1:04:59 Does one realise
one is caught in a trap?
  
1:05:05 That is,
the same repetitive movement,
  
1:05:11 which the computer is doing,
it is repeating much more rapidly,
  
1:05:17 more quickly, more intelligently,
more alive, quick, programmed.
  
1:05:24 And we are also programmed
to be a Catholic, to be a Protestant,
  
1:05:28 to be a Hindu, to be a Buddhist
– you follow? –
  
1:05:31 to be a Democrat,
to be right, left –
  
1:05:34 we are also programmed,
don’t let’s fool ourselves.
  
1:05:41 Therefore we are repeating,
repeating, repeating.
  
1:05:46 Come on, sirs,
what are you waiting…
  
1:05:52 And the questioner asks: is it
possible to be free from conditioning
  
1:06:05 – the predator and the victim –
 
1:06:07 and yet not fall into
another form of conditioning?
  
1:06:13 Am I being fair to the question?
Of course. You agree?
  
1:06:24 So one has to enquire
what is freedom?
  
1:06:30 This movement from one corner
to the other corner of the field
  
1:06:36 – you understand? –
the field is my consciousness,
  
1:06:39 this whole world is my field,
 
1:06:43 and I move from one corner of
this field, psychological field,
  
1:06:49 to another corner,
and I call that freedom.
  
1:06:56 Or I choose to move south instead
of north, and I call that freedom.
  
1:07:03 So I call choice freedom.
 
1:07:06 I am a Democrat,
I choose to become a Republican,
  
1:07:11 but it is the same movement.
We are silly enough not to see that.
  
1:07:17 So is that freedom?
You are following all this?
  
1:07:21 Does choice
bring about freedom?
  
1:07:27 Or where there is choice
there is no freedom.
  
1:07:37 I may choose to move
from Los Angeles to New York,
  
1:07:45 and I can’t do that
in the totalitarian state,
  
1:07:49 I have to have permission,
special grants and so on.
  
1:07:57 So I feel I am a free man.
 
1:08:02 So at what level, at what depth,
or superficial level,
  
1:08:09 do you consider freedom lies?
 
1:08:13 Here in this country you can say
what you like, so far.
  
1:08:21 But you cannot say what you like
when there is a war. Right?
  
1:08:27 Then we are all united
to hate somebody, to kill somebody.
  
1:08:37 So what is freedom?
Enquire, sir.
  
1:08:42 The question is involved in that.
What is freedom?
  
1:08:49 To move from trap
to trap to trap?
  
1:08:54 To move from one kind of misery
to another kind of misery?
  
1:09:07 I am married, I am bored with
my wife, I want a divorce and I go,
  
1:09:13 because I like or love, or whatever
word one uses, to another woman,
  
1:09:19 but the same pattern is repeated.
And I call that freedom.
  
1:09:31 So is there freedom
in this moving in the same area
  
1:09:44 – that area may be wide, or very, very
narrow, but it is the same movement.
  
1:09:52 That is not freedom. Right?
 
1:09:55 So what then is freedom?
 
1:10:00 Freedom obviously means
to totally be free
  
1:10:09 from the whole content
of consciousness.
  
1:10:20 You understand?
 
1:10:23 The problem of one corner is
different from another corner,
  
1:10:32 but it’s in the same field,
 
1:10:36 and we separate the problems,
but it’s one problem.
  
1:10:43 You understand?
I wonder if you see?
  
1:10:46 All problems are interrelated,
that’s clear
  
1:10:50 – my sexual problem,
 
1:10:51 my problem of earning a livelihood,
my problem of God –
  
1:10:55 it’s all one movement
of this everlasting search
  
1:11:01 for something or other,
of becoming.
  
1:11:07 So, freedom is the ending
of completely becoming something.
  
1:11:22 Is it time to stop?
 
1:11:31 Fourth Question:
'What is humility and modesty?'
  
1:11:41 That doesn't exist in this country!
 
1:11:49 Nor in Europe or India.
 
1:11:55 So what is humility?
 
1:12:01 And why have religions all over
the world said you must be humble
  
1:12:15 – inherit the land – right?
 
1:12:19 They have, certainly.
You understand it?
  
1:12:25 The humble
shall inherit the earth.
  
1:12:29 And the empire builders
have inherited the earth.
  
1:12:34 I wonder if you see this?
No, you don’t. It doesn’t matter.
  
1:12:38 What is humility?
 
1:12:44 Can one ever know, or aware,
of oneself being humble?
  
1:12:57 When you know, are aware, realise that
you are humble, you are not. Right?
  
1:13:09 And, modesty
– are we modest?
  
1:13:19 We were talking the other day
to an Indian, in India.
  
1:13:26 He was looking at a magazine
printed in this country.
  
1:13:32 It was one of those magazines
where you see half-naked ladies.
  
1:13:37 And he said, ‘My god, what has
happened? Have they lost all modesty?’
  
1:13:46 And was horrified,
because he has an idea of modesty
  
1:13:53 – that you must be
absolutely up to here.
  
1:14:00 You understand all this?
 
1:14:05 So why do we want
to be modest or humble?
  
1:14:11 Please ask all these questions.
 
1:14:27 When I try to be humble, that is,
willing to learn, willing to be told,
  
1:14:37 abnegating myself
in front of authority,
  
1:14:49 and hang my head down
to the tome to receive something
  
1:14:57 which you are giving me,
 
1:15:02 is that a form of vanity?
 
1:15:09 It’s like a man who is vain
– most of us are
  
1:15:15 and out of that vanity
we try to be humble.
  
1:15:22 Is that humility?
 
1:15:29 A man who is full of aggression,
violence, tries to be modest.
  
1:15:36 You understand?
It’s absurd, it’s lost its meaning.
  
1:15:41 Whereas,
a man who is aggressive
  
1:15:46 realises, sees, what aggression
has done in this world
  
1:15:51 and all the consequences
of that aggression,
  
1:15:54 when he ends that aggression,
a new thing can begin.
  
1:15:59 The ending
– please realise something –
  
1:16:02 the ending of something
is the beginning of the new.
  
1:16:08 Right?
 
1:16:09 If I end my vanity, if I have it
– I am a big man, I am blah, blah –
  
1:16:15 if I am that and I end it, there is
something totally new taking place.
  
1:16:23 But we want to be assured,
before we end,
  
1:16:28 that something will
happen, guaranteed.
  
1:16:34 Then what you are receiving
is not guarantee,
  
1:16:37 it’s the same thing
in another form.
  
1:16:45 Sir, I’d like to come back
to our first question.
  
1:16:52 You have heard all this,
some many, many times,
  
1:16:59 others perhaps for the first time.
 
1:17:04 Why we human beings,
 
1:17:07 who have lived on this marvellous,
lovely earth, destroying it,
  
1:17:15 why we have become what we are,
after so many millennia:
  
1:17:22 vulgar, cruel, bestial,
self-seeking, jealous, lonely
  
1:17:30 – you follow? –
the whole thing.
  
1:17:32 Why don’t we change?
Why don’t we end what we are?
  
1:17:42 Why?
 
1:17:46 Is it we are lazy?
 
1:17:49 Is it we are caught
in a particular rut, pattern,
  
1:17:53 that we haven’t the energy
to change that pattern?
  
1:17:58 We have plenty of energy
when we want to do something.
  
1:18:03 When we want to go to the moon
we have incredible energy.
  
1:18:11 When we want to be champion
of the world as in the Olympics
  
1:18:16 – to run,
you have an incredible energy.
  
1:18:22 We have enormous energy
 
1:18:27 when there is an urge,
when there is a demand.
  
1:18:32 But apparently there is no urge,
there is no demand – why?
  
1:18:44 Is it our food we eat,
too much indulgence in sex,
  
1:18:49 in drink, in this and that,
too much demand to be entertained?
  
1:18:59 So we are wasting
all that extraordinary energy
  
1:19:04 which is part of us
in some futile things
  
1:19:07 and therefore no energy
to face these things and move, end.
  
1:19:18 Is that it?
 
1:19:21 Please, one can’t tell what the cause
of all this – there are many causes.
  
1:19:30 But the explanation of the causes
is not the ending of the causes.
  
1:19:36 So why is it,
 
1:19:40 after so many, many years and
thousands upon thousands of years
  
1:19:48 we are what we are?
 
1:19:56 So that’s for you to answer.
 
1:20:08 May I get up now?