Krishnamurti Subtitles home


RO72DSG1 - Can I live a life which is totally harmonious?
Rome - 31 October 1972
Discussion with Small Group 1



0:01 This is the first small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti in Rome, 1972.
0:12 Krishnamurti: Shall I talk first and then we can carry on with a dialogue?
0:19 Shall we do that? Many: Yes.
0:23 K: That is, perhaps for ten or fifteen minutes I talk and then we will exchange, dialogue or discuss what you wish after that.
0:35 May we do that?
0:54 You know, we are not talking about philosophy as it is generally understood.
1:05 The word ‘philosophy’ from the dictionary means ‘the love of truth’. Generally, the love of truth is an abstraction, something theoretical, speculative, non-factual.
1:36 The love of truth, I feel, is the love of truth in daily life, the daily life that one leads, with all its confusion, sorrow and deception and hypocrisy.
2:01 We have to find truth there not of away from life.
2:10 And to know when one is deceiving oneself. To be aware that one is deceiving oneself is the perception of truth.
2:31 You understand what I am saying? If I know, if I am aware, if I am conscious that I am deliberately deceiving myself, that awareness is the perception of truth.
2:43 So, in life, in the daily living, one has to find this reality, not away in some abstraction, in some theory, in some speculative ideas, because I feel all our life, practically from the moment we are born till we die, we are in constant conflict, not only with ourselves but with our neighbours, with our friends, with our companions, with our wives, and all the rest of it - not only outside but inside.
3:39 And we have become accustomed to this conflict, and we think, and we have been educated by religions, by organised religions, we have, through schools, through colleges, through our education, we have been cultured in conflict.
4:11 To us conflict seems absolutely necessary, as part of our existence.
4:19 And can one live a daily life without any conflict whatsoever?
4:39 Because conflict is a wastage of energy, conflict distorts.
4:48 Like two friends in conflict can never resolve a problem.
5:00 So conflict, which we have accepted as the highest form of achievement, or through conflict achieve, seems to me so utterly distorting, so utterly wasteful of energy; and is there a way of living in which conflict altogether can be eliminated, so that one has tremendous energy, not only physically but psychologically much more?
5:56 So that is the question perhaps we could discuss or talk over together this morning. Which is: is it possible to live a daily life – the office, the factory, earning a livelihood, and in our daily relationship with each other, can every form of conflict, struggle be eliminated, so that our minds become extraordinarily sensitive, have great deal of energy, and therefore work both outwardly and inwardly effectively?
6:54 So that is the question perhaps we could talk over together this morning. Is that all right? Would that have significance to you?
7:12 Conflict exists when there is contradiction in us – wanting to do one thing and oppose it by another desire.
7:28 Conflict exists when there is resistance and conflict exists when there is the action of will.
7:48 That is, when there is a contradiction in myself, a fragmentation in myself, and one of the fragments takes the superior position of dictating to the other fragments what they should do or should not do, then there is contradiction in ourselves.
8:20 When one says, ‘I will do it,’ the action of will implies imposition of an idea or a determination, a conclusion on the other fragments which is the whole of me.
9:05 Am I making myself clear? That is, when I say I will do something, there is a determination, there is a resistance to things that I will not do.
9:28 So such an action of will will inevitably bring about conflict.
9:44 And we are educated to exercise will.
9:56 And our whole activity in life is a series of determinations, a series of actions of resistance.
10:16 So is there an action without will at all? You are following all this? Please, you know, I just don’t talk for my own amusement - I can do that in my own room.
10:41 I want to convey something to you, if you are willing to listen, which is, that there is a way of living in daily life in which psychological conflict doesn’t exist at all, in which the action of will doesn’t enter, a way of living - not ‘a way’ – a living in which there is no contradiction whatsoever.
11:21 I want to convey that to you, not only verbally but actually. That’s why one has to go into this whole question, whether life as we live, a series of battles, has any meaning at all.
11:46 And a life in which there is constant struggle, constant suppression, control, denial seems so utterly vain, useless.
12:17 It wears out not only the brain cells themselves but also all our physical inward states.
12:33 Right? So is there a way of living – living being relationship; there is no life without relationship, whether that relationship be in an office, in the factory, in a field or in a house – living implies relationship, and in that relationship we have accepted as the norm, conflict.
13:21 And is there a way of living, always in relationship, not in abstraction, not withdrawing from the world, not going off into some monastery, but actually living in daily life, can there be a movement without any sense of conflict?
13:50 Please, I am not your guru – you understand? – I am not your teacher. I am not telling you what to do.
14:11 I don’t put myself on a pedestal – you understand all these words? – and you down below.
14:23 So we are working together, thinking together, exploring together, sharing together.
14:39 And this is a problem or a question or an inquiry that one must face, confront, because inward conflict must inevitably produce outward conflict.
15:07 The extreme form of outward conflict is war.
15:19 And a man who would live without any sense of violence must face this problem, must resolve this problem.
15:40 Now, having stated that, to find out for oneself - not from another, not from the person sitting here on a chair in a red shirt – finding out for oneself whether it is possible to be aware, conscious, know that one is in conflict.
16:23 That’s obvious. Then not to escape from that conflict.
16:33 That is, seeking various forms of entertainment, diversions, like going off to the church, or, you know, doing things which prevent the mind facing the problem itself of conflict.
17:02 Why? Please see why. Because the moment you escape, the moment you run away from the factor that one lives in conflict, that movement away produces another series of conflicts.
17:28 Right? You follow? I am in conflict with my wife - (inaudible) – and I escape from it – take to drink, marijuana, drugs, church – they are all the same, all escapes are the same whether it’s God or a drink.
17:59 So, when I escape from the conflict in my relationship I am introducing a factor which produces further problems.
18:20 You understand? And the thing I escape to becomes more important than the thing from which I am running away.
18:33 You see this? I escape from my conflict in my relationship by going to a church.
18:45 I am taking that just as an example. Therefore the church becomes extraordinarily important, and I must protect it, I must safeguard it.
18:59 Or if I take to drink I must safeguard that. So that becomes far more important than the fact that I am escaping from the conflict.
19:22 When I see that, when I see that conflict in relationship and escape from it produces more problems, when I am aware of this then I do not escape.
19:44 There is no determination not to escape.
19:53 Then there is the action of intelligence. Isn’t it? I wonder if you get all this.
20:16 So, in my relationship there is conflict, and I see very clearly, I have an insight.
20:30 Do you know what that word ‘insight’ means? No?
20:37 Q: Perception, perhaps?
20:42 K: Perception. Insight. I have an insight; I read between the lines; I see clearly the structure of escape.
21:04 You follow? I see very clearly, not only outwardly but inwardly, I see very clearly the nature of escape, what it does.
21:26 Therefore I have an insight. That very insight prevents me from escaping - not my determination not to escape.
21:40 The moment I determine not to escape then it produces a conflict.
21:49 Right? So, will not to escape, the action of will not to escape, is a form of resistance and therefore contradiction, therefore division, and therefore conflict.
22:05 Have you got this?
22:13 So, perception, insight, observation prevents the action of will and resistance, and therefore no conflict.
22:31 So we have to find out what it means to observe, what it means to see, what it means to have an insight.
22:43 I cannot see, observe, if I have a prejudice.
22:54 That’s fairly obviously, isn’t it?
23:05 I cannot observe freely if I have a conclusion about that which I am observing.
23:24 Right? So I ask myself: have I opinions, have I conclusions, prejudices, which obviously prevent seeing clearly?
23:54 And if I have, how shall I be free… how shall the mind be free of those prejudices, conclusions, opinions, without suppression – you are following all this? – without the action of will, says, ‘I must not be prejudiced’?
24:23 So how am I, who have prejudices, if I have any, conclusions, if I have any, to completely be free of them?
24:38 Please, you understand, this is…
24:55 And there must be freedom. Freedom means non-conflict. Isn’t it? Obviously. A state of mind in which conflict has completely ceased.
25:13 And if I determine not to have any prejudices, it’s a contradiction, isn’t it?
25:24 I have prejudices and I determine not to have prejudices, therefore it’s a contradiction.
25:34 And that contradiction is a division, ad where there is a division there must be conflict.
25:42 You’re seeing all this? So can the mind be free of the prejudice, of any prejudice, without any movement of will, of resistance?
26:12 That’s one problem.
26:19 And can my prejudices, my conclusions, the various conditionings that I… that the mind has acquired during the lifetime, of existence, of struggle, of conflict, and all the rest of it, can the mind be free of all that without introducing another factor which will only produce conflict?
26:54 Can it be free of all that without analysis? You are following all this?
27:07 And to be free, not in time but immediately.
27:13 Q: Can I ask a question? You are speaking of fragments of will which obviously are all in strife, one with another, because trying one to subdue the other there would be a struggle.
27:31 Now there would be a way of control or a way of acceptance, but as obviously we can’t accept all these different struggles and these different fragments of will, which part of them may be subconscious and biological or have some reason or another beyond our control which we could not, even wishing so, control.
27:57 Obviously there would be a choice between accepting one and not accepting the other, as we cannot accept all of these fragments.
28:15 K: So you are saying, sir, choice is necessary.
28:19 Q: I should think so. Choice of accepting one not the other.
28:24 K: Choice of accepting this or that.
28:26 Q: Yes.
28:27 K: Now just a minute. What does choice imply?
28:37 And who is the chooser?
28:40 Q: Well are we, first of all, are we free to choose in segments?
28:59 If we are so, will our choice be possible without conflict of accepting one thing against accepting another.
29:05 K: Yes, I understand this. But for me choice doesn’t exist at all.
29:11 Q: Would that mean… (inaudible) K: Wait, sir. No, no. Just listen, sir. Just give me two minutes. Choice implies an uncertainty.
29:35 Choice implies confusion. Choice implies I have to choose this or that, accept this and reject that.
29:48 Why should I choose at all? Choice only exists when I am confused. If I see very clearly, there’s no choice.
30:04 Q: With clear awareness of these different impulses in us or fragments of will… (inaudible) would that mean that we’ve got to deliver us out with a free mind to all of them if we do not make a choice?
30:30 K: No, sir. No, sir. Look, one is made up of many fragments. The ‘me’ is the content of many fragments.
30:47 No? This is not a theoretical discussion. I am composed, the ‘me’ is composed of many, many, many fragments – the Indian fragment – you understand? – the cultural Indian fragment, the cultural Brahmanic fragment, the traditional fragment, the European fragment, the educated person in Europe, French and so on - I am composed of these many, many, many fragments, with their conclusions, with their traditions.
31:35 I am all that. And if I choose one, who is the chooser?
31:43 Q: But is choice something similar or preliminary to decision?
31:50 We cannot obviously live without decision.
31:54 K: On the contrary. I said the moment you see something clearly, the seeing is the acting. Sir, wait a minute. If I see very clearly the danger of a snake, what happens?
32:17 The perception is instant action.
32:20 Q: Yes.
32:21 K: Now, why don’t I… why doesn’t the mind see clearly, instantly, that any conflict is destructive?
32:36 Any conflict, inwardly or outwardly.
32:43 Because it doesn’t see… because it is been educated to accept conflict as the way of life.
32:54 And the way of life is to choose. I choose to go to this church or to that church. I choose to become a communist or a non-communist. I choose communism because I’ve read very carefully what Lenin and all the people say, Marx, and it appeals to me.
33:18 Right? I think it is a social way of bringing about - whatever it does.
33:28 I choose it. Depending on my pleasure, on my knowledge, on my conclusion, on the environmental pressures, unconscious, I choose.
33:41 Or I choose capitalism or socialism, and I think freedom is part of choice.
33:57 I say on the contrary: where there is choice there is no freedom at all. Because I see choice… Sir, look, sir, when you know the road to your home very clearly, the path, you don’t choose.
34:19 You know it. You go the same way. There it is, finished. It’s only when I don’t know whether I should go there, left or right, I enquire, I choose, I say, ‘Tell me.’ The man who knows says, ‘Go that way.’ And he may be deceived so I experiment.
34:41 So there is, to me – forgive for being emphatic about it; I am not - but to me any kind of choice implies confusion of the mind.
34:56 A mind that does not see clearly, a mind that is guided by pleasure, by fear, by its own anxiety, or a mind that seeks a result, so he says, ‘I want to go there, I’ll choose this to get there, or this’ - is choosing all the time in order to get there.
35:28 So, to me choice prevents action. You follow? It’s incomplete action. Whereas if you see things clearly, you act.
35:38 Q: Would you mind clearing me up that one thing. If a reaction or an action is immediate, for instance, shrinking back from a snake, making a step back, obviously there’s not much choice, it is directness, it is a direct awareness, but is this awareness not leading into an immediate choice?
36:13 K: No.
36:14 Q: Which is not standing on the snake… (inaudible) K: No, that’s not a choice, sir, is it?
36:16 Q: It’s immediate instead of being intermediate.
36:17 K: No, no, no. I won’t even use that word ‘immediate’. Let’s go into this question. I step back from the snake… one steps back from the snake because one has been conditioned to snakes.
36:40 That’s one factor.
36:42 Q: Yes.
36:44 K: All my past, all the generations past have said, ‘Be careful of the snake.’ Right?
36:53 And my mind, the mind is conditioned to a snake, and therefore the conditioned reflex says: step back.
37:01 Right?
37:02 Q: The snake could sting.
37:05 K: Of course, that’s what it says: run away.
37:08 Q: Because the snake has not been conditioned, the snake is…
37:12 K: I said me. I said we are conditioned. Not the snake, poor thing. (Laughter) No, no. We are conditioned to the snake, and we are conditioned to choice.
37:36 I mean, all our life is choosing.
37:46 As we are conditioned to the action of will, that’s part of our conditioning, part of our education, part of our way of life.
37:56 Like comparing ourselves with another, measuring ourselves with another, that’s part of our education.
38:03 You must be as good as that person. You must be as brilliant as… You know? All these comparative measurements is part of our culture. And that’s our conditioning. And we accept strife, choice as a way of life.
38:30 So I say to myself: what is choice? Why should I choose at all? I know I must act, because action is living. So I know I must act but why should I choose?
38:53 Does choice prevent action? I mean by action, complete, non-contradictory, non-fragmentary action, so that it is an act that is whole, sane, complete.
39:17 And I say to myself: choice doesn’t produce that.
39:27 So why should I choose? And what is the mind that chooses? A mind that chooses must be confused. So, can the mind be free from confusions to see clearly?
39:53 Confusion being disorder. So, disorder. Disorder is to have an opinion, a conclusion.
40:12 You have your conclusion, I have mine, and he has his.
40:19 My conclusion is I am a Hindu – right? – or you are an Italian, a Catholic, a Protestant.
40:30 Those are conclusions, not realities. So, these conclusions separate human beings.
40:41 And where there is separation there must be conflict. Therefore I say to myself: conclusions, have I conclusions? I won’t deceive myself – you understand? - I want to find out. Because the moment I have a conclusion, an image, an opinion, a judgment, I am incapable of seeing clearly.
41:15 And then, not being able to see clearly, choice arises.
41:25 Q: I wonder if this choice we are speaking about, we spoke earlier about doubt – in that you said that one must know when to hold on and when to let go.
41:44 It seems to me, I am curious about when holding on or making a choice… (inaudible) K: Ah no. No, no. No, no. I mean, if I keep on doubting everything, which means I won’t even listen to you.
41:59 I doubt everything. I doubt myself, I doubt you, I doubt whether – you know? – everything. It’s a stupid mind that doubts everything. No, wait, don’t bring that in for the moment, sir - we can see clearly, that’s fairly clear.
42:18 So I am concerned now… we are now concerned with a mind that is confused, disorderly, has innumerable opinions, conclusions.
42:32 Such a mind is incapable of seeing clearly. Right? That’s fairly obvious. Now, has my mind such conclusions, opinions - from which choice, all the rest of it follows?
42:58 And you may have - I have or you have conclusions, or conclusions that are based on other people’s opinions, acceptance of your philosopher, your teachers, your saviours, your priests, Marx, Engel, whatever it is.
43:26 So can my mind be free of this conclusion?
43:39 Q: You were saying that action is living. Now, is action in itself not a way of conclusion?
43:51 Because pre-supposing a clear insight, a directness of approach to the thing we are investigating, an action will have to follow which is living.
44:04 Now is this not a direct – I would again use the word – an immediate or an automatic conclusion?
44:16 K: Ah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You are concluding, I am not. I am saying, sir… Look, I have to act; living is action.
44:30 Q: Yes.
44:32 K: That action is contradictory.
44:37 Q: Yes.
44:39 K: That action produces conflict – one time peaceful, another time conflicting.
44:48 So, we live in action, which are always contradictory. Right?
44:54 Q: If they were not, could we live without actions?
44:58 K: Ah, that’s not the point.
45:01 Q: Action is living.
45:03 K: No. I said action is living, but living in action as we do is contradictory.
45:12 Q: To other actions and to other ways of living, but not necessary to our own.
45:20 K: Of course.
45:21 Q: It may be even to our own because we are changing from one moment to the other and we may accept things today which we may not have accepted two months or a year ago.
45:52 K: Yes. So, are you asking, sir, is action continuous or is action from moment to moment?
46:00 Q: According to insight.
46:01 K: Wait, wait. No, don’t bring in ‘according to’ – that means you’re conforming to a pattern.
46:03 Q: No, I’m leaving out the pattern completely.
46:06 K: Moment you say ‘according to insight’, it means that.
46:10 Q: The insight is direct approach, isn’t it?
46:14 K: No, wait, wait, I wouldn’t… Sir, not your… I’m afraid we are theorising. What is insight, sir? What do you mean, insight?
46:32 Q: I should say insight is…
46:35 K: Not your opinion…
46:37 Q: …a consciousness, a complete awareness of the thing without a pattern; being confronted with our own essence.
46:45 K: No. Ah, now we enter into ‘our own essence’ and all that. I don’t know anything about ‘our own essence’ - I won’t enter into that. Seeing clearly is insight, isn’t it?
46:58 Q: Yes.
47:00 K: I cannot see clearly if my mind is confused.
47:05 Q: But in that moment it cannot be confused because one thing excludes the other. If I see clearly I cannot be confused at that moment when I see clearly.
47:17 K: No, sir. No. If I am confused – let’s put it that way – if I am confused I cannot see clearly – right? If I am contradictory I cannot see clearly. If I am disorderly in my life, in my daily life, not in some…
47:35 I cannot see clearly. So, my problem is: am I disorderly inwardly? Am I disorderly?
47:50 Disorder means contradictory. Feel one thing, think another, say another.
48:02 Contradictory. The fact and the ideal, that’s contradictory.
48:08 Q: Yes.
48:10 K: The fact and ‘what should be’ is contradictory. So I say: is the mind – yours or mine or X’s mind – contradictory, disorderly?
48:23 It is. Actually it is.
48:30 Q: Not at the moment of insight.
48:36 K: No, I’m not worried about the insight. I said it’s only possible to have insight when this doesn’t exist.
48:48 Q: Yes.
48:49 K: Therefore my concern is not insight at all but the finding out, and the mind freeing itself from disorder.
49:01 Then out of that, because it is clear, free from disorder, it perceives.
49:04 Q: Is that not a choice, to free oneself of disorder?
49:09 K: Ah, we are going to go into that. It is no choice at all. Sir, look, is your mind disorderly? I am not – please don’t confess it, I’m not your confessor.
49:31 (Laughter) Is your mind disorderly, in the sense contradictory, non-fragmentary?
49:41 When it is fragmented – the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’, the ‘we’ and ‘they’, ‘mine’ or ‘not mine’ – you follow? – all those are implied, it isn’t just one fragment opposing another fragment - the whole structure and nature of fragments must create disorder.
50:06 So, is your mind fragmented? The soul, the body, the essence and the non-essence – you follow? – the whole structure of fragmentation.
50:20 If it is, obviously you cannot see clearly.
50:28 If you are prejudiced against, say for instance, a red shirt or a brown face, you will not listen to what the poor chap is saying.
50:39 That’s so obvious. There’s no question of choice. You will not listen because you are prejudiced.
50:54 And to say, ‘Please, listen to what I say,’ is impossible for you to listen.
51:02 So, don’t bother what I say but remove your prejudice. You follow, sir? Now, can you remove… can the mind free itself from prejudice, conclusion, without conflict, without the action of will which is choice?
51:29 Q: Will you show us the way?
51:42 K: I am doing it, sir, I am doing it. Ah, not ‘the way’.
51:47 Q: No, but show us.
51:48 K: I’m doing it, I’m doing it. I’ll tell you, sir, I won’t show you the way. There is no way. Truth is a pathless land, it isn’t the property of one person, or one group, or one teacher.
52:13 Now, let’s proceed. Look, sir, I’m confused. Suppose I’m confused. I’m aware of it. Right? Please follow this step by step, will you? I’m confused, I’m aware of it. Now, am I aware of it intellectually, that is, verbally, or am I aware of it – you know? – with passion, with a wholeness?
52:59 Am I aware of my disorder because you have pointed out to me?
53:14 If you have pointed out to me, it is a verbal communication and the brain receives the words, either rejects it or accepts it, and therefore it is something you have told me.
53:35 Right? It isn’t I am aware that I am confused. I am aware that I’m hungry - you don’t have to tell me.
53:51 You follow this? You don’t have to tell me I’m hungry, I know I’m hungry. So in the same way, with that same feeling – you follow? – am I aware that I’m… is my mind aware that it has got conclusions?
54:09 So, you are aware not because somebody points out, because you are aware of it, you are aware for itself.
54:18 Q: Now this is conflict, isn’t it? Being hungry is already a conflict.
54:25 K: No, no, just a fact, just a fact. It’s only when I can’t get food that conflict begins. Just the fact that I’m hungry. If I can’t get food then the problem begins – where am I to get it, please give it to me - I steal, I beg, I borrow, I do something.
54:46 Q: This is conflict.
54:48 K: That is conflict, not the fact that I am…
54:51 Q: Not the fact.
54:52 K: Not the fact.
54:53 Q: But it creates conflict.
54:54 K: Ah, wait. We’re only dealing with facts. We’ll see it in a minute what happens. You follow? You asked me to show it, to observe what happens. So I am saying: if somebody tells me that I am hungry it has no value.
55:12 Right? I know I am hungry, nobody has to point it out. Do I, in the same way know… does my mind in the same way, aware that it has conclusions?
55:31 Then the problem is, it says, ‘Yes, I have got conclusions, what am I to do?’ Then the problem arises.
55:40 Q: And the choice, because I’ve got the choice either to starve or to steal.
55:48 K: No, no. Sir, we are sticking to facts. Facts being: I am confused, I am disorderly, I have conclusions.
56:00 That’s a fact. Now what shall I do? What shall the mind do? Come on, sir, discuss it. You have conclusions, haven’t you?
56:15 Q: I haven’t quite got the meaning of what you say. What has the mind to do when…
56:25 K: Sir, sir, I’ll put it this way.
56:32 You have conclusions, haven’t you? My lord. No? Now…
56:39 Q: But the conclusions are always… (inaudible) K: Wait, wait, wait, wait.
56:47 I’m going to stick to this one thing because it’s so important in my life, in your life.
56:54 I don’t want to get theoretical about it because… Conclusion is a nationality. You understand, sir? I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a blasted whatever it is, and these conclusions are creating wars, one of the causes of war.
57:20 So I say: have I a conclusion that I’m a Hindu? A stupid Hindu or a clever Hindu - that’s a conclusion.
57:37 Now, have I seen it… has my mind seen it for itself or are you telling me and therefore it says, ‘Yes, by Jove, yes, it is so’?
57:51 And then when you say and convey to me and I accept it, he comes along and says something different, then begins the choice.
58:02 Oh, come on, sir.
58:11 No? So, has your mind conclusions? Face it, sir, look at it.
58:28 Q: I think not at the moment of great danger.
58:31 K: We are not in great danger here. You are sitting here quietly, I hope, not battling with me. Because if you want to battle with me, I’ll walk out. I’m not interested in battles. I’m not trying to convert you to anything. I’m not doing propaganda. I am just pointing out. If you don’t like it, you don’t like it; I’m sorry, that’s the end of it. We shan’t quarrel about it. All that I am saying is: have you conclusions now?
59:12 Obviously you have, otherwise you wouldn’t be here.
59:21 And do you… are you aware… is the mind aware of the whole structure and the nature of conclusion, in which is involved what happens if you have conclusions?
59:42 You understand, sir? You see a picture painted by some artist. There is no choice, he has painted it. You might say you don’t like it or you like it; the painting is there. So in the same way, do you see this thing clearly?
1:00:10 Or do you say, ‘Well, conclusions are necessary sometimes, they are beneficial in a society where conclusions are of the greatest importance’?
1:00:27 When I go to India, as I shall next week, and I say I am not a Hindu, to those people who are all Hindus, they say, ‘What?
1:00:42 Get out.’ You follow what I’m saying?
1:00:50 I don’t believe in their gods, or any gods, which is not a conclusion but it’s a fact – gods are invented by the mind, frightened, you know, all the rest of it.
1:01:02 So, have I got conclusions? Go on, sir.
1:01:06 Q: Excuse me, you just said when we… that there is a point… You say we live in a world that accepts conclusions and that therefore we must accept some conclusions – is that what you said?
1:01:20 K: You might say that.
1:01:21 Q: No, I was curious as to whether… is that what I understood you to say?
1:01:27 K: No.
1:01:29 Q: Where do you draw the line between facts and conclusions?
1:01:33 K: Where do you draw…
1:01:35 Q: I just wanted to clarify this. I’m just curious as to why any conclusions must exist.
1:01:38 K: Sir, I just said: we are living in a world of conclusions.
1:01:42 Q: Yes.
1:01:44 K: The scientist, the teachers, your mother, everybody conclusions. Right? And you see what conclusions do. You see clearly what conclusions do: create conflict.
1:02:00 Q: Yes, exactly. All right.
1:02:03 K: Then what will you do?
1:02:04 Q: Well we begin to look at the… we check the conclusions, to doubt the conclusions, to be rid of them.
1:02:11 K: So what does it mean? That you are free of conclusion, living in a world of conclusions.
1:02:17 Q: I don’t know.
1:02:20 K: Ah, therefore you have conclusions.
1:02:25 Q: Not with the doubt. I might.
1:02:32 K: Sir, either you are outside the prison or in the prison.
1:02:34 Q: Well if you are outside the prison there are no conclusions.
1:02:38 K: If you have no conclusion you are outside the prison.
1:02:45 And the people who have conclusions are living in the prison. Obviously.
1:02:49 Q: All right.
1:02:51 K: Then what is your relationship with the people in the prison?
1:03:00 You don’t go far enough. Push it, sir!
1:03:02 Q: Well, yes, it’s the beginning then, this is the beginning.
1:03:07 K: Go on, push it, push it!
1:03:08 Q: All right.
1:03:09 K: What is your relationship between that man who has conclusions, who lives with conclusions and therefore creating strife and conflict and all the rest of it, and you who have no conclusions at all?
1:03:21 I hope you haven’t. So what is your relationship between him and you?
1:03:26 Q: As long as the conclusions exist on his part there is no relationship.
1:03:34 K: That’s all. Wait! Stop. There is no relationship. Then what happens?
1:03:39 Q: Then we begin once again the conflict.
1:03:40 K: Wait!
1:03:41 Q: Excuse me.
1:03:42 K: How can there be conflict if you have no relationship with him?
1:03:46 Q: No, you were saying what is the relationship…
1:03:49 K: I’m asking you, sir, what…
1:03:51 Q: There is no relationship.
1:03:52 K: That’s all. Then what do…
1:03:54 Q: (Inaudible) K: Wait, wait. Stop there. You have no relationship with a man who is full of conclusions and you are free of conclusions. You have no relationship. Then what will you do in a society, living in a society – listen to it, sir – working in a society which is full of various subtle and changing conclusions?
1:04:20 What will you do?
1:04:25 Q: This is not a choice.
1:04:27 K: Therefore there is… That’s all. Therefore what will… You will do… You see, I want you to tell me, I’m not going to tell you.
1:04:35 Q: Well, you begin to… then to begin to… the questioner, anything to break down the conclusion.
1:04:44 To pose, to be gentle.
1:04:46 K: Therefore you are an outsider who is a revolutionary.
1:04:49 Q: Perhaps. I don’t know.
1:04:51 K: Psychological revolutionary.
1:04:53 Q: All right. All right.
1:04:57 K: That’s all.
1:05:00 Q: All right.
1:05:02 K: Full stop.
1:05:04 Q: To do what?
1:05:08 K: That’s all. Full stop. Somebody may give you food, clothes, or somebody may kill… You are outside, that’s all.
1:05:18 Q: So, in which case then we must not have any conclusions, sir.
1:05:28 We don’t need to have any conclusions.
1:05:31 K: (Laughs) No, caramba, no. (Laughter) Q: But why must we?
1:05:34 K: Ah, no, no. I did not say we must not. I said a mind that…
1:05:37 Q: Ah, yes, right. Sorry.
1:05:40 K: Right. You were saying?
1:05:44 Q: I was saying, where do you draw the line between facts and conclusions?
1:05:52 K: Wait. Right. Where… conclusions. Between fact and conclusion, where do you draw the line? Go on, tell me please. I’ll tell you, but you don’t…
1:06:00 Q: For instance, I am a woman.
1:06:04 K: Yes.
1:06:05 Q: It’s a fact.
1:06:07 K: Yes.
1:06:08 Q: Or is it a conclusion?
1:06:09 K: No, it’s not a conclusion, is it?
1:06:11 Q: All right. So already we are drawing a line.
1:06:15 K: No, no. Look, the fact is a human being is the product of his culture, modified, changing but is part of his culture.
1:06:35 That’s a fact. I may conclude from that fact that it is beneficial, I may conclude from that fact that it’s harmful, but the fact is we are conditioned as a human being.
1:06:53 That’s all. That is a fact. And I am not drawing any conclusion. I say, living with that fact, that the human mind is the product of the culture in which it lives, modified, changing and all the rest of it; such a conditioning must inevitably create division and therefore conflict, war and all the rest of it.
1:07:24 That’s not a conclusion, that’s a fact. Historical; you can see it happening under your eyes.
1:07:31 Q: But they’re not only the products of our culture. As long as we are not only the products of our family, of our nation, we are also something besides that, aren’t we?
1:07:43 K: We are going to – I don’t know, we are going to find out. I am not going to stipulate. Sir, look, I have been brought up in a country which says we are the Atman, we are the paramount, super-super-super God, or whatever it is.
1:08:06 I don’t know; they have told me. I know nothing about it. Therefore I don’t suppose anything; I must find out. Therefore I can’t say, ‘Well, I am something more than the environment, I am something more than the culture.’ I don’t know.
1:08:27 So I must deny, put away, empty the mind… the mind must empty itself of the culture, of the environment.
1:08:37 Then I shall be free to find out. I won’t start with a conclusion that I’m something more; I don’t know.
1:08:54 You see my point, sir?
1:09:01 If you have got a conclusion… Look, sir, I have a conclusion that Jesus exists, to take your own…
1:09:13 Jesus exists. And you have a conclusion: ‘Poor chap, he’s living in an illusion.’ Right? Don’t you have an illusion? Then what will you tell me? There is a division between you and me. Come on, sir. So why can’t we start without any conclusion to find out what truth is?
1:09:46 And as you move in finding out, never come to a conclusion, and therefore you are acting all the time freely.
1:09:58 Oh, well, that’s it.
1:10:02 Q: A great part of our actions are reactions, aren’t they?
1:10:09 K: Of course, of course. Reactions of my conditioning, reactions out of my belief, and so on, so on, so on.
1:10:25 Q: Well, when we are attacked, for instance, reaction is defence.
1:10:28 K: Of course, of course.
1:10:29 Q: And that’s not a pattern, it’s not a conclusion, it’s something immediate.
1:10:35 K: No. That is, you insult me, I insult you back.
1:10:43 That’s a reaction.
1:10:44 Q: It needn’t be.
1:10:45 K: You tell me I’m an idiot, and I don’t like that because I have an image of myself as being a marvellous man, and I react. (Laughter) It’s simple, this. And I react according to my conditioning. That’s a fact. So I say: why does the mind always live in this conditioning?
1:11:09 You follow, sir? Go on. But you don’t.
1:11:12 Q: Sometimes we recognise these ideas or these conclusions in the mind. One believes these conclusions, ideas.
1:11:25 K: One needs them?
1:11:27 Q: No, no, I said one believes them. I don’t say ‘needs them’. Because unless we recognise these things as conclusions then we can look out and drop them.
1:11:32 K: Quite.
1:11:33 Q: And that as long as we believe them then we dwell in them, they have power.
1:11:39 K: Why? Yes, sir - why do you believe in them? Let’s take it up. Why do you believe in them? Why do you believe that you are something more than the environment?
1:11:57 Why do you believe? It’s very comforting, isn’t it?
1:12:02 Q: Well, I don’t see it.
1:12:06 Q: It’s insecurity, wanting to be secure.
1:12:10 K: That’s very comforting, secure, because things - physically you die, everything is changing, but there is something permanent which is the real and you can spin around that illusion endlessly.
1:12:24 So I say why do we start with any of these things? Let us start with something factual: I don’t know anything. What I do know is being imposed by the culture, by the society, by my education, by my family, by my own reactions.
1:12:44 Q: But the question is whether beliefs are always conditioned or whether there are not some beliefs which are not conditioned.
1:12:53 K: Why should I believe at all?
1:12:56 Q: Well, there may be something immediate in us which is so immediate that we couldn’t even call it belief, but which, in other terms of words, would still be, could be called belief.
1:13:12 K: Why should I have any belief, sir? Why should I have – please just listen – why should I have belief in this microphone? It’s a microphone - why should I introduce my belief about it?
1:13:28 We have all agreed to call it ‘microphone’ – right? – and therefore there is no… in communication it is very simple. When I say microphone, we know what that means.
1:13:38 Q: So should I call it ‘inner certainty’ instead of belief. Something more immediate still, because belief still is something which might be called conditioned but some inner certainty of which we are with our passion, as you say, with all our being convinced…
1:13:57 K: Yes, sir.
1:13:58 Q: That needn’t be… This conviction is not…
1:14:03 K: Why not, sir? Wait just a minute, sir. What’s the difference between – I’m not taking to you personally – between you and a man who believes passionately, certainly, he says there is God, there is something tremendous?
1:14:23 How do you know that thing is not the result of your fear, your uncertainty, your desire for security?
1:14:36 How do you know it’s not the result of your family?
1:14:40 Q: I’m coming back to the fragments of will which we are trying without control or without acceptance to bring into harmony.
1:14:51 And this harmony has been called God by so many people.
1:14:59 K: Sir, I only know… man knows only disharmony. He may invent harmony, call it God, call it Krishna or call it Buddha, whatever you like to call it.
1:15:13 He is in conflict; let’s start from that.
1:15:16 Q: But the moment something becomes creation it is already a harmony.
1:15:27 A creation, let’s say a painting, this is something…
1:15:29 K: No, wait, sir.
1:15:31 Q: …which is an object which in all its plurality it has become harmony, hasn’t it?
1:15:38 K: Now, sir, you used two words, ‘creative’ and ‘harmony’ – right?
1:15:43 Q: Yes. And I think there should be a relationship between the two because so many things driving into very different directions are united in a creation.
1:16:01 K: Yes. Now, I’m not talking personally, I’m not asking you to confess, I’m talking generally: are you in harmony, complete harmony?
1:16:17 Not you, sir, I’m not talking of you - is one in harmony?
1:16:20 Q: Cannot one be in harmony at times? (Inaudible) K: Ah, wait a minute, wait a minute.
1:16:29 Yes, therefore you are saying – listen to it carefully, please – one day I’m harmonious, a week later I’m disharmonious, or the next day.
1:16:43 That’s a contradiction, isn’t it? And the mind which has been harmonious remembers that harmony and says, ‘For God’s sake, I’ve been harmonious, let me get back to that,’ and therefore there is conflict.
1:17:01 Oh, for God’s…
1:17:02 Q: Obviously the artist who once has created a thing wants to get back to the state of creation again, and in the intervals he feels unhappy.
1:17:13 K: Therefore what does that mean? That means he has an insight into beauty occasionally.
1:17:24 From that insight he paints, and the rest of the time he leads a shoddy little life and he’s crying for that moment.
1:17:41 And you call him a great artist because one moment he has captured that beauty and puts it on a canvas and the rest of the time he lives a disorderly, stupid, ugly - everything.
1:17:53 Q: But artists agree that this moment cannot be got at will but it is something… (inaudible) K: Oh, but I’m not – yes, he’s painted a picture - I’m not interested in that, sorry.
1:18:08 I’m interested if I can live a life which is totally harmonious, not at moments.
1:18:18 When you use the word ‘always’ it implies time and I object to that word ‘always’ because you want to have it always.
1:18:30 I say, ‘Look, is your mind in harmony?’ You say occasionally it is.
1:18:45 That isn’t good enough. So my inquiry is: can I live a life that is totally harmonious, deeply, profoundly all the time?
1:18:56 Live.
1:18:57 Q: Isn’t that faith in itself?
1:18:59 K: Ah! I’m asking a question.
1:19:02 Q: Yes, but I’m asking a question.
1:19:06 K: That’s not a faith. I say it is not a faith. I don’t know, I want to find out!
1:19:13 Q: Yes, but this is a very interesting problem, I think.
1:19:18 K: No.
1:19:19 Q: Because this is not trying to live always in harmony.
1:19:25 K: No, sir. Look, sir, please. Occasionally, rarely, a moment of harmony comes, uninvited.
1:19:36 And that moment I capture the great beauty. And because I have a talent with my fingers or with my mind, I paint it.
1:19:48 The rest of the time I’m in total disharmony, I’m unhappy, you know, women, men, you know all the rest of the beastly little business.
1:20:02 Then I ask myself – I’m asking, it’s not a theory, it is not an opinion, it’s just a question – can I live a life which is totally harmonious?
1:20:16 Not rarely. I must find out. I’m passionate to find out. I’d give my life to find out - not just occasionally give my life to find out or discuss verbally, theoretically, but I want to find out if a human being can live totally harmoniously.
1:20:48 Q: Suppose he might; would that not be a faith, not in something, not in something but a faith in itself, being able to live a life in harmony?
1:21:04 K: Why should I have faith in anything? The things I have put my faith in have all failed – the church, the education, the politics, the leader – everything has failed.
1:21:20 Why should I put my faith in anything, including in myself?
1:21:30 Q: I wonder if the man’s problem is that we are so used to looking for answers.
1:21:37 You state always a question, so immediately we look for an answer. We can’t look any other way.
1:21:39 K: Yes. I am not looking for an answer.
1:21:41 Q: No, I’m not saying you. I’m saying that is where the problem exists, that rather than leaving it alive, leaving it without conclusions, we look for an answer, we must find something.
1:21:50 K: See, that’s what I’m saying, sir. I put the question. I say: is it possible to live harmoniously?
1:21:57 Q: And that’s it.
1:21:58 K: I put the question and I want… You follow? My question is not just up here, a verbal question; I’m burning with it, I want to find out, I don’t want to just sit round the corner and live a stupid life, occasionally having a bright life and the rest of it blindness.
1:22:19 I say I must find out, and I give my life to it.
1:22:24 Q: Well, I could not see how we could obtain to this disharmony - not intervals, but a harmony which gives continuous…
1:22:35 K: Sir, just a minute…
1:22:39 Q: …without any basis for this harmony. And what would have to be the basis? If we do not accept any conditioning at all, what would be the basis for this harmony?
1:22:55 Because a basis there’s got to be.
1:22:57 K: Why should I have a basis? Why should I have faith, why should I have a basis, why should I have any conclusion?
1:23:06 Q: But how do you attain to harmony then, without having the basis for it?
1:23:13 K: I’ll show you. To have mind that’s completely empty of all the human theories and words and ideas.
1:23:28 Sir, look, our consciousness is made up of the contents.
1:23:35 Its content makes consciousness.
1:23:42 Right? My consciousness is its content. Its content is Hindu, Buddhist, conclusions, theories, fears, pleasures – you know?
1:23:59 – multiplication of things. And that makes my consciousness. And knowing my consciousness is fragmentary in its content, I invent something outside it and say that is God.
1:24:20 I want to start with having nothing. I’m a beggar.
1:24:23 Q: But people who do not believe in anything…
1:24:34 K: I did not say ‘believe’. Please, sir, just listen quietly. I said: why should I believe? I didn’t say I should not believe. Why should I believe? In what? And how is my belief born? Because I am afraid, I’m unhappy, I’m miserable, I’m tortured, I’m crying with my sorrow.
1:25:02 Why should I have belief? To get rid of all that sorrow? Has belief helped anybody to get rid of their sorrow? They can escape from sorrow. So, please…
1:25:14 Q: But I think in no generation before ours, before the young generation, has done away with beliefs, with conditioning, with all sorts of things so entirely as ours, and none has been so disharmonious than ours.
1:25:32 K: Sir, the young people – I don’t know, the ones I have met – they have great many beliefs.
1:25:42 May I tell you a little joke? A boy and a girl were standing in 5th Avenue in New York – it’s a cartoon – and they were looking out of the window.
1:25:56 Down there on the street, see the hippies, long hair, short hair, you know, all that, walking down.
1:26:04 And the boy says to the girl, ‘There goes the establishment.’ (Laughter) They have got beliefs, they have got opinions, judgements, they are disorderly.
1:26:19 Q: Before, during the discussion, you were talking about being in a prison or out of the prison and then the subject was dropped.
1:26:34 Did you intend that this was a conclusion?
1:26:39 K: Sir, not a conclusion, sir… Oh my.
1:26:42 Q: (Inaudible) K: Sir, look, sir…
1:26:44 Q: (Inaudible) …use that word ‘conclusion’.
1:26:46 K: No, no. We said you are free – if you are free – you are free from conclusions and I am not; what is your relationship with me?
1:27:00 Have you any relationship? I live in prison of my conclusions and you are free of conclusions, outside the prison; what’s your relationship with me?
1:27:14 None. You might say, ‘We must have relationship,’ and create an idea that there is a relationship between you and me, which would be a conclusion.
1:27:30 But if you have no conclusion and I live in conclusion you have no relationship.
1:27:42 You are in danger, I am not.
1:27:45 Q: Does this mean that you would live outside of society?
1:27:49 K: You do. Because you live outside society, you can help society.