Krishnamurti Subtitles home


RV84DSG1.1 - Have you ever looked with all your senses?
Rishi Valley, India - 16 December 1984
Discussion with Small Group 1.1



0:01 This is the first small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti at Rishi Valley, 1984.
0:11 Pupul Jayakar (PJ): Krishnaji, for some years you have been speaking of the need for a new mind, a culture which will be able to deal with the problems which we face, not only in this country, but in the world, problems of growing cruelty, increasing violence, tremendous callousness, a disregard for human life and a growing distance between the human being and the sacred, the sacred dimension. If we go in this direction, annihilation seems inevitable. But how is this new mind, this new culture to come about?
1:24 Krishnamurti (K): I don’t know what you mean by the new culture, new mind. Biologically and also psychologically, human beings have travelled a long distance, forty, fifty, a hundred thousand years, and they’ve always talked about, as far as I can understand, a different way of living. And apparently in the twentieth century, we seem to have forgotten all that altogether. As you pointed out, we’ve become extraordinarily violent, brutal, cruel, barbarous, if I can use that word. And out of this present soil, a new culture cannot possibly arise. We must move out of this soil. You can’t have a marvellous, tender plant with constant wind, snowstorms, and without water. It can’t live. So it seems to me, not only in this country, but all over the world, this spreading of violence, political corruption, and other forms of corruption, and the constant threat of war, cannot possibly produce a new culture, or a mind that is comprehensive, that is not conditioned by any country. As I was saying, I don’t think—I don’t want to be too positive about these matters, but I don’t think it is possible for a new—I don’t like the word culture even—for a new civilization, for a new well-being of man, to be born out of this utter confusion and corruption and chaos in the world. At least—I may be wrong, but you need a different kind of brain, not genetically engineered, not a brain that has been conditioned parochially or religiously, in the ordinary sense of that word religion, but a brain that is really free from all the turmoil, conflict, misery, confusion, and the mess that human beings have made.
5:45 PJ: When you… Achyut Patwardhan (AP): We land upon a difficulty, the difficulty…
5:54 K: I am sure you would.
5:56 AP: …the difficulty is that, as it is not possible to posit that a new culture will come from outside, by some outside influence, then it has to come, emerge, out of the immanence of what already is there of goodness in man. Now, it is also true that in the midst of all this cruelty and all this barbarism, there is that tender root of, tender sprout of goodness, human goodness, which is there, and it is out of that, a re-flowering has to come. Now, what I would like to ask you is that we cannot wait upon regeneration of man first, and then this thing to flower out, because this thing has to flower out, and the regeneration of man is a total process.
7:00 K: Sir, there are two questions involved in this—there are several questions involved in that. Either there is this whole concept that from above…
7:11 AP: Yes.
7:12 K: …which I reject totally.
7:14 AP: That’s right.
7:15 K: It’s nonsense to talk about…
7:16 AP: That’s what I said also.
7:18 K: …higher consciousness coming down to lower consciousness, or drawing the higher consciousness to transform man. That, in different forms, has existed throughout the world.
7:36 AP: Yes.
7:37 K: God, super-consciousness.
7:38 AP: Avatara.
7:39 K: All the rest of it. I think that is utterly, from my point of view, has no meaning. Not my point of view. For me, it has no meaning. And the fundamental question really is: what will change man? That’s the real question. Not an external agency, however divine or spiritual or some philosophical point of view, but I think man has to change himself, because he is not the measure of himself. He is not the measure of man. But he has to be completely aware of what he is—actually, not theoretically. What he is is this nationalistic division, religious division, sectarian division, gurus who bring about various other forms of divisions, or the past gurus—dead, gone. I think all that has to be put aside completely, and man has to be responsible utterly for himself. Responsibility doesn’t really convey, that word. Man has to realise what he is, first; what, after all these millennia, he is, still barbarous. I think that’s the first thing he has to—not read Gita and Upanishads, and the Bible, and all the fundamentalists and all that. This is modern age, all that has gone, no meaning! I think that’s the fundamental question.
9:57 PJ: You said something just now that man is not the measure of himself.
10:04 K: No.
10:06 PJ: It’s a very challenging remark. If man is not to the measure of himself, what is he the measure of?
10:20 K: Measure means, doesn’t it, limitation, comparison. Technologically you have to have measure, otherwise nothing can function. These microphones cannot function without measurement.
10:38 AP: But, sir, would you not accept that just as you have to see all the brutality and violence and ugliness in man, there is also that essential goodness in man, the benevolence of man, the affection of man. There is such a thing as affection. These are spontaneous things implicit in man. Man is essentially this, and unless you see this side also, you can’t just see the evil in man.
11:07 K: I am not saying that, sir. I am neither saying he is good or evil.
11:12 AP: I understand.
11:13 K: I am just saying he has to face himself.
11:16 AP: That’s right.
11:18 K: He has to come to terms not only with the world, what is actually happening—the technological diabolity, the marvellous surgery that is going on, the implements of war, he has to face all that. And goodness is a very difficult subject. One has to go into this question: What is goodness? We can’t say man is good, there is goodness in him. I think there is a goodness, not—we must go into this question very carefully. What do you mean by good and that which is not good? Are they related to each other? If they are related, it is not goodness. I don’t know…
12:30 AP: I am trying to understand. All that I feel is, that there is the bedrock of benevolence, of goodness, which is a realisation that man’s well-being is inseparably identified with the well-being of all other human beings. This is an instinct.
12:46 PJ: You see, if I may say so…
12:51 K: I can’t accept.
12:54 PJ: …he started with one statement, that from this ground, from this ground of corruption, may be some goodness also, from this ground the new can never emerge. I would like to ask him: Is this so? The ground you mean, the mind itself.
13:18 K: Now, just a minute, no, we must differentiate, for me at least, if you don’t mind. What do you mean by the mind and what do you mean by the brain?
13:29 PJ: But just now when I used the word mind, I used it in terms of the brain because I don’t know the other.
13:36 K: No, shouldn’t we introduce a new set of words, if you don’t mind?
13:41 PJ: Yes.
13:42 K: That is, the brain is what is the whole centre of man—his nerves, his responses, his reactions, his nervous tension…
13:55 PJ: Yes.
13:56 K: …his fears, his happiness, his brutality, it is all within the skull.
14:04 PJ: Yes, yes.
14:07 K: And the genetic engineers are trying to change what is within the skull.
14:15 PJ: Yes.
14:16 K: And hoping thereby there’ll be a new man.
14:20 PJ: Yes.
14:22 K: And they are experimenting in that direction you know, greatly. The brain has immense capacity.
14:31 PJ: Yes.
14:32 K: There is no question about it. And that brain is limited by our psychological activity. And the mind to me, for K, is something totally outside the brain. This, you don’t have to accept it, but you can at least look at it.
15:00 PJ: Yes.
15:01 K: You can observe it, you can question it.
15:04 PJ: But when we talk of the ground just now, we are talking of the ground as the brain.
15:10 K: As the brain. Is that—I don’t know if…
15:13 AP: I do, sir, I do. I accept it.
15:16 K: What?
15:17 AP: That by ground we mean the brain.
15:19 K: Yes. Can the brain which has been conditioned—there is no question…
15:26 AP: Yes.
15:28 K: …linguistically, religiously, politically, geographically, climatically and the division of nations, religions—the brain in itself is fragmented.
15:42 AP: Yes.
15:44 K: And the brain has become fragmented through the activity of thought. The activity of thought is in itself limited because experience, knowledge and so on. I won’t go into all that. So that brain is the centre, now, of man. He knows nothing about the other—mind—but within this brain we are trying to solve all our problems. Right?
16:18 AP: Yes.
16:19 K: And we hope from this ground of the brain—if I can use such a word—we hope to bring about a new culture, right?, a new man. For me that is an impossible statement.
16:37 PJ: In which case, Krishnaji, it leads you inevitably to the position: if the brain as the ground is incapable of transforming, then there is within man himself an incapacity to do anything about it. Because that is the only…
17:04 AP: …thing he knows.
17:06 PJ: …area which is within his cognition.
17:12 K: Yes. He has tried everything.
17:16 PJ: Yes, and failed.
17:18 K: Failed. He has tried fasting, he has tried torturing himself, he has tried every kind of power, gurus, philosophers and so-called saints, all these authorities. He has done everything possible to bring about a change in himself, but he hasn’t succeeded.
17:43 PJ: And yet you say there has to be change—not change—but there has to be a new mind, a new culture…
17:50 K: That’s what I am saying.
17:51 PJ: … a new civilization.
17:52 K: So we have to discuss, talk over together not only what is the brain and its capacities, but also that quality of love which is not within the brain. I don’t know if I am pushing it too quickly.
18:15 PJ: No. The question then would come up, if it is not within this cognitive field of the ground of the brain, then is it like air, wind, that you allow to move through you, that a question like that to move through you? Because what else do you do with it?
18:43 K: No, we must go into this very carefully if you have time, because it’s not—can the brain, that is the question, Pupulji. The brain has evolved through time, right?, millennia upon millennia, and it is the very centre of all our action.
19:07 PJ: Yes.
19:09 K: That very centre is the movement of thought.
19:14 AP: Sir, besides thought, would you conceive or would you consider it possible that man may have a foothold, an attention which comprehends this limitation of the brain, an attention which he sees, which is not part of this contaminated surrounding.
19:38 K: Sir, just a minute. You are using the word attention. What do you mean by that word? You see, let’s…
19:44 AP: I do not feel quite happy to stunt the very image of man as restricted to his brain. I feel that man also has a capacity for attention in which he can see the limitations and how they…
20:05 K: Agreed. If he can attend, right?, if he attends completely, which means with all his nerves, with all his heightened senses—not destroying the senses as the religions throughout the world advocate—with all the senses awake. And in attention means, there is no self in that attention.
20:41 AP: Right, sir.
20:42 K: That’s all. If he has that, it is not within the structure…
20:45 AP: …of the brain.
20:46 K: …of the brain cells.
20:47 AP: But it is there, in man.
20:48 K: No. It is there when you have that attention. You enter, not you enter, there is that which is beyond the brain. You may not accept this. Quite, you shouldn’t. One must be sceptical about all this.
21:07 PJ: When all the senses are working…
21:09 K: …at their highest excellence.
21:11 PJ: … at their highest, and there is no centre operating…
21:15 K: The centre is the self.
21:18 PJ: …is the ground.
21:19 K: Is…?
21:20 PJ: Is the ground of the brain.
21:22 K: Of the brain, yes. If you like to put it that way. I’d go into it.
21:29 PJ: So the very operating of all the senses at their highest wipes out…
21:37 K: … the persona, the me, the self-interest. It is the self-interest that has conditioned the brain. Because self-interest is very limited, destructive, whether it is in the name of God, in the name of—self-interest hides so subtly in every way.
22:12 PJ: Would you say, sir, a few words about the unfoldment of this?
22:20 K: Uh?
22:21 PJ: Would you say a few words about the unfoldment of this?
22:24 K: Of the senses, you mean?
22:27 PJ: Unfoldment of the senses…
22:28 AP: …and the emergence of attention.
22:31 PJ: …and the emergence of attention.
22:34 K: Sir, I’ve made simple enough: have you ever looked at a flower, or the movement of the sea, or the new moon, just a slip in the western sky, with all your senses? With all your attention? If you have, which I am sure most have, even for a second, in that attention the self is not operating, because the thing is so marvellously beautiful. For that second, the self is driven out of oneself.
23:26 AP: Out of consciousness.
23:29 K: It is gone. So, is it, I am asking you, is it possible for human beings to be fully aware of their particular limited senses, and also become attentive to the unfolding of all the senses—not the suppressing of any sense—because the brain, sir, is active in its senses. We only use a part of it. So I am suggesting that when you look at something, look at it with all your senses—at a flower, at a woman, at a man. In that sense, the senses—after all we live by the senses. We live by seeing, hearing, talking, feeling. And if you destroy one, you are destroying the whole activity of the senses. I don’t know if you are following what I am…
25:01 AP: I do, sir. I want to ask whether this attention is capable of operating on the brain. There is an operation of this attention on the brain.
25:11 K: Just a minute, sir. What do you mean?, who is operating?
25:15 AP: No, the attention I mean.
25:16 K: Now, what do you mean by attention? That’s why I am careful in trying to find out what you mean by attention. Is it something to be practised?
25:26 AP: No, sir.
25:27 K: I must be very clear on this.
25:29 AP: I am very clear, sir, that to me, that attention is like the quality of light which dispels darkness, because the two can’t co-exist.
25:38 K: Yes, it’s like a flame.
25:40 AP: It’s like a flame.
25:41 K: Now, that attention burns away the self, self-interest. Right?
25:51 AP: Yes.
25:53 K: Or that means the very brain cells themselves have undergone a change. We discussed this matter with some of the scientists. To give a simple example: I have been going north all my life—I’ve followed gurus, I’ve followed some man who says I’ll bring down super-consciousness and all that kind of rubbish to me. He says I have been following that all my life. You come along and say—you are a very serious man and I am also a serious man—you come along and say that leads nowhere. He says to me try east, going east, and because you are serious and I am also serious, I am listening with all my attention to you. I turn at that moment, at that second, east. Then the very brain cells have broken down the old pattern, or rather the old pattern has been broken down. So, there is a tremendous change in the brain cells themselves. The experts may not agree. One or two have agreed.
27:24 AP: Would I be right in paraphrasing you like this: that attention is that which triggers the process of regeneration. I am not using the word brain cells but only the word that a different quality comes into being.
27:47 K: Yes, you will have to put it that way. But, sir, we must be careful…
27:49 AP: No, if there is anything wrong I would like you to tell me.
27:51 K: Yes, you must be careful in the usage of that word attention. That’s all my point. Now, if I may ask you, do you actually attend to what the speaker is saying at this second? Listening with all your attention, not translating or paraphrasing or trying to interpret what he is saying, but actually listening. Or, the mind, the brain is moving back and forth and translating. This is not, I am not asking a personal question.
28:40 AP: No, I understand.
28:41 K: But since we are talking about all these things, we must be very clear what we are saying, otherwise it all becomes so shoddy, meaningless. You see, Pupulji, you raised a question, Pupulji: what is sacred. Right? Without finding that, without coming upon it, not you finding it, without that coming into being, you can’t have a new culture, you can’t have a new human quality. And obviously this, that which is sacred, is not in any temple. Right?
29:41 PJ: Yes.
29:44 K: In any mosque, in any church, and no guru, no—none of them, cannot talk about it. If they had it, it would be something so enormous. You can’t turn it down and give little bits of it to people. I don’t know if you understand what I am saying.
30:12 PJ: I understand, sir.
30:17 K: So is there such…
30:20 AP: If man does not get it from anywhere outside—my question, I come back to: is it implicit in attention?
30:31 K: Yes, sir. But I would move away from that word for a while. [Laughs]
30:36 AP: I am not holding on to any word, sir. But one has to use some word.
30:38 K: If you don’t mind, move away from that word…
30:41 AP: All right.
30:42 K: …for the moment.
30:42 AP: Yes, sir.
30:45 K: Sir, man has tried from—oh, from the beginning to find something sacred. He has tried everything, right?, tortured himself, fasted, kept silent and did all kinds of philosophical—ideas, theories, and man has now after all these several millennia, has come to this point—brutal, violent.
31:21 AP: Yes, yes.
31:23 K: Therefore one has to wipe away all that, and start anew, which means don’t accept anything about spiritual matters, so-called spiritual matters, from anybody. That is the first thing. I don’t know if you see the importance of it. Don’t ask help from somebody else. But—I was talking to a Lama in Benares and he was saying the Buddha said, ‘Don’t seek help’. And they promptly go and organise help—all the gurus. And that is the most, to me, that’s a real sin, to ask help from another about spiritual matters. I go to a doctor. I need, if I am ill I need his help.
32:23 PJ: But, surely, having a discussion with you in which you open up a problem as we have been doing in the last—is not asking for help.
32:38 K: No. Not at all. What is actually taking place between you and the speaker at this second? I am not helping you, I am not saying look at this or don’t. We are both of us using reason, right?, logic, sanity, and our own capacity to see what is truth, our own capacity to see what is truth, not somebody else’s truth. Then that is, to me that is, as I said, a sin against truth.
33:32 PJ: Thank you, sir.
33:39 K: Is that finished? All right.
33:46 PJ: This was for forty-five minutes. But we should have a discussion on this. When should we have it? Tomorrow morning, sir?