Krishnamurti Subtitles

Goodness only flowers in freedom

San Diego - 17 February 1972

Conversation with Eugene Shallert 1

0:02 Krishnamurti in Dialogue
with Father Eugene Schallert.
0:07 J. Krishnamurti was born in South
India and educated in England.
0:12 For the past 40 years he has been
speaking in the United States,
0:16 Europe, India, Australia
and other parts of the world.
0:21 From the outset of his life's work
he repudiated all connections
0:24 with organised
religions and ideologies
0:27 and said that his only concern
0:29 was to set man absolutely,
unconditionally free.
0:33 He is the author of many books,
among them
0:36 The Awakening of Intelligence,
The Urgency of Change
0:40 Freedom From the Known,
and The Flight of the Eagle.
0:45 In dialogue with Krishnamurti
is the Rev. Eugene J. Schallert
0:49 of the Society of Jesuits,
the Director of the Center
0:52 for Sociological Research at
the University of San Francisco
0:56 where Father Schallert is an
Associate Professor of Sociology.
1:02 S: I think we should perhaps start
by exploring with each other
1:09 the discovery of that which is most
real in the world in which we live
1:18 and how we learn to see
that which is most real.
1:24 K: Sir, would you consider
1:31 that to see very clearly
1:35 the whole complex
human problem
1:39 not only politically,
religiously, socially
1:44 but also
the inward morality,
1:51 a sense of otherness
– if we can use that word –
1:58 mustn't one have total freedom?
2:06 S: Yes, I don't see
how one can possibly explore
2:10 anything of relevance
to the world in which we live
2:14 in the absence of a recognition or
an awareness of his own inner freedom.
2:20 To feel that we are limited,
or constricted in our approach
2:29 to social, economic,
political, moral problems
2:32 – particularly our
religious problems –
2:34 that we can't explore these
from some other base
2:37 than the real base
which is the base of being free.
2:43 K: But most religions and
most cultures
2:47 whether Asiatic, India or Europe
and therefore America,
2:53 they conditioned
the mind a great deal.
2:58 And you notice it,
as one travels around,
3:04 how, in each country,
in each culture,
3:10 they have taken tremendous pain
to shape the mind.
3:16 S: I suppose this is the function
of culture, to shape the mind,
3:19 – not very effective – but it is
the function of culture to provide
3:24 in a sense a buffer between
the overwhelming dimensions
3:28 of human existence, which then would
transcend and encompass all existence,
3:35 and which becomes an overwhelming
experience for a person.
3:39 Cultures do, in a sense, soften, or
attempt to make culture manageable,
3:45 or doable
in some way or another.
3:47 K: Yes, but I was thinking really:
when one considers
3:53 how the world is divided
politically, religiously, socially,
4:00 morally, and especially
in the religious field
4:05 which should be
the unifying factor of all cultures,
4:12 there one sees
how religions have separated man:
4:20 the Catholic, the Protestant,
the Hindu, the Muslim,
4:23 and they're all saying,
'We're all seeking one thing.'
4:28 S: Even within the framework
of any given religion
4:31 there is a great tendency for people
to divide one subgroup
4:35 against another subgroup and
this seems to be indigenous to...
4:40 K: Therefore freedom is
the negation
4:48 of being conditioned
by any culture,
4:53 by any religious division
or political division.
4:58 S: I would think that ultimate freedom
is the negation of such a condition.
5:03 The struggle for freedom
5:05 is precisely the attempt
to break through or undercut
5:10 or get at that which underlies
these various conditioning processes.
5:14 The conditioning processes
5:17 go on in each human being, or
in each flower, or in each animal
5:24 and the task in the pursuit
of freedom is precisely
5:28 to break through
to that which is ultimately the real.
5:34 K: I'm just wondering
what we mean by conditioning.
5:38 S: Conditioning in cultures,
throughout history
5:42 and across space
is quite varied, as you know.
5:48 Conditioning, for example, in
the Western world of today,
5:53 has been achieved primarily
through the process
5:56 of the enlightenment of
rational-logical processes
6:01 which I suppose
are productive.
6:03 Without rational processes
we wouldn't have
6:06 television cameras to talk on.
The same time
6:08 with television cameras
we may not see anything.
6:11 So I suspect that what we
are dealing with, in our world,
6:16 as a primary conditioning agency,
is the whole world
6:20 of the kinds of thoughts
or categories or concepts
6:25 or constructs
– I call them fantasies –
6:27 that people deal with
and somehow they think are real.
6:31 K: Yes, sir, but don't these
conditionings separate man?
6:38 S: Unquestionably yes. They
separate man both within himself
6:41 K: …and outwardly.
S: Yes.
6:44 K: So, if we are concerned
with peace, with ending war,
6:52 with living in a world
in which this terrible violence,
7:00 the separation, the brutality
etc., is to end,
7:07 it seems to me that it is the function
of any serious religious man
7:14 because I feel religion is
the only factor that unifies man.
7:20 S: Yes.
7:21 K: Not politics, economics, etc.
but the religious factor.
7:28 And instead of
bringing man together,
7:33 religions have separated man.
7:37 S: I'm not sure that that's
quite right. I think that religion
7:41 has been defined by cultures
as a unifying force between men.
7:47 There's not an awful lot
of evidence in history
7:49 that it has ever achieved
this particular function.
7:53 This may also be a function
of the limiting dimensions
7:57 of any given religion, or
the inability of religious people
8:01 to transcend
their own religious concepts
8:05 or their own religious
legends or myths or dogmas,
8:07 whatever you want
to call them.
8:09 There is in fact
a deeper base for unity.
8:16 K: One can't get to the deeper
unless one is free from the outer.
8:22 My mind
won't go very, very deeply
8:26 unless there is a freedom
from belief, from dogma.
8:30 S: I think that's true in a sense.
There must be within man a sense
8:38 – consciousness, experience,
something –
8:42 a sense of his inner freedom before
he can be appropriately religious,
8:48 before he can allow religious
categories as analytical categories,
8:52 to have any meaning for him.
8:54 Somehow he must be human
and free before he can ever think
8:58 of being religious. What
has happened is just the opposite.
9:02 K: Yes, yes. Therefore we are saying,
seeing what the world is now
9:06 actually, not conceptually,
but the actual fact of separation,
9:15 wars, the terrible violence that
is pervading the world right through,
9:23 I feel it is the religious mind
that can bring
9:28 real unity to human beings.
9:31 S: I would say rather it's the
human mind, or the seeing mind,
9:36 that may be susceptible
to some exhilaration, if you will,
9:42 not in the sense of stimulus
but some exhilaration relative
9:45 to the phenomenon
of being itself,
9:48 that can bring people together or
achieve an end to the conflicts...
9:53 K: Could we approach it by asking
what separates man ?
9:59 What divides human beings?
10:05 S: I think ultimately, man-ness.
K: Meanness?
10:08 S: Man-ness.
10:09 K: What do you mean
by that, man-ness?
10:12 S: What I mean by that is our
tendency to think about ourselves
10:16 as men, or human,
rather than as being,
10:20 separates us from the world
in which we live
10:24 – from the tree, the flower, the
sunset, the sea, the lake, the river,
10:28 the animal, the bird, the fish,
and each other, ultimately.
10:34 K: That is, from each other.
S: Yes, ultimately from each other.
10:37 K: From each other. And that is
given strength by, or through,
10:48 these separative religions.
10:52 I want to get at something, sir,
which is,
10:58 is reality or truth
11:04 to be approached
through any particular religion
11:08 or is it approachable
or perceivable only
11:16 when the organized religious
belief and propaganda, dogma,
11:22 and all conceptual way of living,
completely goes?
11:27 S: I am not so sure it is appropriate
to say that it should completely go
11:31 for a lot of other
reasons that are posterior to
11:35 the phenomenon of being
human in the first place,
11:40 or being, simply,
in the first place.
11:41 If we're going to get at
the question of truth,
11:45 which is the question
of understanding or seeing,
11:49 we have to first of all
get at the question of being,
11:53 and the whole inner dynamics
and evolutionary characters of being.
11:58 If we can't get at that level,
in the beginning,
12:02 we really won't get at
whatever value
12:06 the 'teachings' of the
various religions offer men.
12:12 If those teachings
are not relevant to existence,
12:14 to being, to seeing,
to understanding, to loving,
12:18 or to an end of conflict,
in the negative sense,
12:21 then those teachings are really not
relevant for man, they're unimportant.
12:28 K: I agree. But the fact remains,
sir, just look at it,
12:32 the fact remains, if one
is born a Hindu or a Muslim
12:38 and he is conditioned by that,
in that culture
12:42 in that behavioural pattern,
and conditioned
12:48 by a series of beliefs,
imposed, carefully cultivated
12:56 by the various religious orders,
sanctions, books, etc.,
13:04 and another is conditioned
by Christianity,
13:10 there is no meeting point,
except conceptually.
13:15 S: Krishnaji, do you mean that in
order for a man to be free, simply,
13:22 he will have to rid himself
of whatever religious –
13:27 and particularly religious –
but also political and cultural
13:32 and social doctrines or dogmas
or myths that he has associated
13:35 with himself as
a religious person?
13:38 K: That's right.
Because you see, after all,
13:40 what is important in living
is unity,
13:47 harmony
between human beings.
13:52 That can only come about
if there is harmony in each one.
13:57 And that harmony is not possible
if there is any form of division
14:03 inside and outside
– externally or internally.
14:08 Externally, if there is
political division
14:13 geographical division,
national division,
14:16 obviously
there must be conflict.
14:19 And if there is
inward division
14:22 obviously it must breed
a great conflict,
14:28 which expresses itself in violence,
brutality, aggressiveness, etc.
14:35 So, human beings
are brought up in this way.
14:39 A Hindu, a Muslim
are at each other all the time,
14:44 or the Arab and the Jew,
14:46 or the American, the Russian
– you follow? – this outwardly.
14:49 S: I think what we are dealing with
here is not so much
14:53 the imposition of harmony on
the human being from without
14:57 or the imposition of disharmony
on the human being.
15:01 My hands are perfectly harmonious
with each other, fingers move together
15:05 and my eyes move with my hands.
15:08 There may be conflict in my mind,
or between my mind and my feelings,
15:14 as insofar I have internalized certain
concepts which then are in conflict.
15:19 K: That's right.
15:20 S: What I must discover
if I am to be free
15:24 is that there is in fact
harmony within me.
15:28 And If I am to be one with you
I must discover from my hand
15:33 'Hand, tell me what it's like
to be a part of something.'
15:37 Because my hand is already
harmoniously existing with my arm
15:41 and with my body,
and with you.
15:44 But then my mind sets up
these strange dualities.
15:47 K: So, that's the problem, sir.
15:49 Are these dualities
created artificially, first of all –
15:57 because you are a Protestant,
I am a Catholic,
16:00 or I am a communist
and you are a capitalist –
16:03 are they created artificially
16:07 because each society
has its own vested interest,
16:13 each group has its own
particular form of security?
16:24 Or is the division created
in oneself
16:32 by the me and the not me?
16:37 You understand what I mean?
S: I understand what you mean.
16:39 K: The me is my ego, my selfishness,
my ambitions, greed, envy
16:44 and that excludes, separates you
from entering into that field.
16:54 S: I think that really the more
one is conscious of his selfishness,
17:00 his greed, his ambition, or,
on the other side of the fence,
17:04 his security, or even his peace,
in a superficial sense,
17:09 the more unconscious he is
of the inner self who is in fact
17:14 already one with you – however
much I may be unaware of that.
17:18 K: Wait, just a minute, sir,
that becomes a dangerous thing.
17:23 Because the Hindus
have maintained,
17:26 as most religions have,
that in you there is harmony,
17:32 there is God, there is reality.
In you.
17:35 And all that you have to do
is peel off
17:40 the layers of corruption,
the layers of hypocrisy,
17:44 the layers of stupidity, and
gradually come to that point
17:49 where you are
established in harmony –
17:53 because you've already got it.
17:56 S: The Hindus don't have a monopoly
on that particular way of thinking.
18:00 We Catholics have the same problem.
K: Same problem, of course.
18:05 S: We are confronted
with a discovery
18:08 with the discovery of seeing,
of understanding, of loving,
18:12 of trusting – all these
primary sorts of words
18:15 we're confronted with
the discovering of these things.
18:18 And peeling back layers, I don't think
is the way of discovering them.
18:24 Whether it be layers of corruption,
of goodness or evil, whatever,
18:30 that is not the way
of discovering them.
18:32 One does not abstract from or pretend
away his sense of evil within himself
18:39 in order to find himself.
18:42 What is required is a penetrating,
empathetic, open, free mind.
18:47 K: Yes, sir, but how does one
come to it? How does one,
18:55 with all the mischief
that one is brought up in
19:00 or one lives in,
19:03 is it possible to put all that aside
without effort?
19:10 Because the moment there is effort
there is distortion.
19:14 S: I am sure that is true.
Without effort, that is, activity,
19:20 behaviour, too much conversation,
but certainly
19:25 not without the expenditure
of enormous amounts of energy.
19:28 K: Ah! That energy can only come
if there is no effort.
19:33 S: Precisely...
19:35 K: If there is no friction
then you have abundance of energy!
19:40 S: Precisely. Friction destroys,
it dissipates energy.
19:44 K: Friction exists
when there is separation
19:46 between what is right
and what is wrong,
19:50 between what is called evil
and what's called good.
19:53 If I am trying to be good
then I create friction.
20:00 So the problem is, really, how
to have this abundance of energy
20:07 which will come
without any conflict?
20:17 And one needs that tremendous energy
to discover what truth is.
20:23 S: Or goodness is. If we
deal with goodness in the sense
20:27 that you use it there
– one tries to be good –
20:30 we're dealing with codes,
with law…
20:34 K: No, no, I don't mean that!
S: Moral goodness in some sense.
20:37 K: Goodness only flowers in freedom.
It doesn't flower within the law
20:42 of any religious sanctions
or any religious beliefs.
20:46 S: Or political or economic.
There's no question about this.
20:50 Then if we're going to discover
the inner meaning of freedom,
20:57 and of goodness, and of being,
we have to say to ourselves
21:02 the reason
we have not discovered this
21:06 or one of the reasons why
we have not discovered this
21:08 is because we have within
ourselves this strange tendency
21:12 to start with the surface of things
and never to end.
21:15 We stop there,
where we started.
21:19 K: Sir, could we come to this:
21:22 suppose you and I know nothing,
21:30 no religion...
S: We have no conception...
21:34 K: …no conceptual idea at all.
21:39 I have no belief, no dogma,
21:45 And I want to find out
how to live rightly, how to be good –
21:52 not how to be good – be good.
S: Be good. Yes, yes, yes.
21:57 K: To do that, I have to enquire,
I have to observe. Right?
22:07 I can only observe...
22:11 observation is only possible
when there is no division.
22:16 S: Observation is that which
eliminates the divisions.
22:18 K: Yes, when the mind is capable
of observing without division
22:25 then I perceive,
then there is perception.
22:29 S: In any seeing that is more than
conceptual or categorical seeing,
22:34 or observing mental constructs,
22:38 in any seeing that takes place,
a truth is encountered.
22:43 And being and truth and goodness
are all the same thing.
22:47 K: Of course.
22:48 S: So the question then is:
why do I have to think about truth
22:52 as though it were associated with
the logical consistency of categories?
22:58 Rather than think about truth
as though it were associated
23:00 with my being itself.
23:03 If I have to always
partialize my world
23:08 – we spoke of the dualities – like
we do or did in the Catholic religion,
23:15 the duality of body and soul.
K: And devil, good and…
23:19 S: And good and evil incarnate
in one form or another.
23:22 If we have to always think that way
then we shall never find…
23:25 K: Obviously.
S: …what it means to…
23:27 K: …be good.
S: To be good, yes, yes,
23:30 or to be truthful,
or to be at all.
23:33 I think this is the problem,
and, as you suggested,
23:36 there are so many centuries
of cultural conditioning
23:40 from all perspectives,
that it is difficult.
23:44 K: I mean, human beings
are brought up
23:46 in this dualistic way of living,
23:50 S: Yes, and maybe we could do this
better if we could not consider
23:57 the obvious dualities
of good and evil,
24:01 of the sacred and the profane,
24:06 of right and wrong,
of truth and falsehood,
24:11 none of these dualities
but somehow come to grips
24:15 with the duality
that bedevils us the most:
24:17 the duality of you and me,
of man and woman.
24:22 K: Yes, duality of me and you.
Now, what is the root of that?
24:27 What is the source of
this division as me and you,
24:33 we and they, politically
– you follow?
24:37 S: There cannot be any source of this
in us because we are one,
24:42 like the fingers of my hand are one.
We aren't aware of it.
24:44 K: Ah, wait. No.
When you say 'We are one',
24:48 that's an assumption.
I don't know I am one.
24:54 Actually, the division exists.
24:58 Only when the division ceases,
then I can say...
25:03 ... I don't have to say, 'I am one' !
There is a unity.
25:06 S: When you say, 'I am,'
you are saying, 'I am one.'
25:09 K: Ah, no!
S: Adding 'one' is redundant to 'I am'
25:12 K: No, I want to go a little bit
into this because
25:15 there is only
– as human beings live –
25:19 there is me and you,
25:21 my god and your god, my country and
your country, my doctrine, you follow?
25:26 This me and you, me and you.
25:30 Now, the me
is the conditioned entity.
25:35 S: Yes. The me
is the conditioned entity.
25:38 K: Let's go step by step.
The me is the conditioning,
25:42 the conditioned entity
brought about, nurtured,
25:47 through the culture,
through society, through religion,
25:50 through conceptual,
ideological living.
25:55 The me that is selfish,
25:56 the me that gets angry, violent,
me that says, 'I love you',
26:01 'I don't love'
– all that is me.
26:05 That me
is the root of separation.
26:10 S: Unquestionably. In fact, the very
terminology you use betrays
26:16 the substance of your idea.
The word 'me' is an objective pronoun.
26:21 Once I have made of myself
something out there to look at,
26:26 I shall never see anything
which is real
26:29 because I am not out there
to look at.
26:32 Once I make freedom
something out there to pursue,
26:36 then I shall never
achieve freedom.
26:38 Once I make freedom something out
there that someone will give me
26:41 then I shall never
achieve freedom.
26:43 K: No, no. All authority, all that
can be pushed aside.
26:46 There is me and you.
As long as this division exists
26:51 there must be conflict
between you and me.
26:54 S: Unquestionably.
26:55 K: And there is not only conflict
between you and me
26:58 but there is conflict
within me.
27:01 S: Once you have objectified yourself,
there must be conflict within you.
27:04 K: So, I want to find out
27:10 whether this me can end,
so that...
27:17 ... Me end! That's good enough to say.
Not 'so that'.
27:21 S: Yes, because there is obviously
no 'so that' if the me ends.
27:26 K: Now, the me.
27:28 Is it possible to completely
empty the mind of the me?
27:35 Not only at the conscious level
but deep,
27:41 at the deep unconscious roots
of one's being.
27:47 S: I think it's not only possible
but it's the price
27:49 that we must pay for being,
or being good, or being true
27:54 or being at all, living.
To live, the price we must pay
28:01 is to rid ourselves of me,
28:03 K: Is there a process, a system,
a method, to end the me?
28:10 S: No, I don't think there
is a process or a method.
28:13 K: Therefore there is no process,
it must be done instantly!
28:17 Now,
this we must be very clear,
28:20 because all the religions
have maintained processes.
28:27 The whole evolutionary system,
psychologically, is a process.
28:33 If you say
– and to me that is a reality –
28:37 that it cannot possibly be
a process,
28:43 which means a matter of time,
degree, gradualness,
28:48 then there is only one problem,
which is to end it instantly.
28:56 S: Yes, to destroy the monster
at one step.
28:59 K: Instantly!
S: Yes.
29:02 Unquestionably that must be done.
We must destroy me-ness.
29:07 K: No, destroy... I wouldn't use.
The ending of the me,
29:11 with all the accumulation,
with all the experiences,
29:15 what it has accumulated,
consciously and unconsciously,
29:19 can that whole content
be thrown out?
29:24 Not by effort, by me.
29:27 If I say: 'By me I'll throw it out'
it is still the me.
29:30 S: Yes.
29:31 K: Or if I throw it out by exertion
of will, it is still the me.
29:35 The me remains.
29:38 S: It is not – clearly in my mind,
it is not an act,
29:42 or an activity of the mind,
nor an activity of the will,
29:46 nor an activity of the feelings,
nor an activity of the body,
29:50 which will help me to see me
– no, pardon me –
29:55 will help me to see.
K: See, yes.
29:59 S: And since we, in this world,
are so wrapped up with doing,
30:03 with having, with acting,
we really don't understand
30:07 reflectively and profoundly
what takes place before we act
30:13 or before we possess.
30:14 And I think that
it is incumbent upon us
30:17 to reflect backwards
and see that there is seeing
30:22 before seeing takes place
30:25 – in the two senses
of the word seeing –
30:27 just as there is loving before
one becomes aware of loving,
30:32 and certainly
just as there is being
30:35 before one becomes
aware of being.
30:37 K: Yes, sir, but I…
30:40 S: Is the question reflecting
30:42 deep, inwardly, deeply enough?
30:45 K: Now just a minute, sir,
that's the difficulty, because the me
30:49 is at a conscious level and at
the deeper levels of consciousness.
30:57 Can the conscious mind examine
the unconscious me and expose it?
31:11 Or the content of consciousness
is the me!
31:18 S: No, the self transcends
the content of consciousness.
31:22 But the me may well be
the content of consciousness.
31:25 But the me is not the I,
the me is not the self.
31:28 K: Wait, wait. I included
in the me, the self, the ego,
31:34 the whole conceptual
ideation about myself,
31:41 the higher self
the lower self, the soul:
31:44 all that is the content
of my consciousness
31:49 which makes the I, which makes
the ego, which is the me.
31:54 S: It certainly makes the me, yes.
I unquestionably agree with that,
31:58 that it makes that objective self
that I can examine and analyze
32:02 and look at, compare, that I
can be violent with others about.
32:07 It's explanatory, if you will, or
the summation of the whole thing
32:12 which you put in the word 'me',
is explanatory of a history
32:16 of a whole multiplicity
of present relationships
32:21 but it's still
not getting at the reality.
32:23 K: No, the reality cannot be got at,
or it cannot flower
32:29 if the me is there.
32:32 S: Whenever, as I said before,
whenever I insist upon viewing
32:37 you as me, then
the reality cannot flower
32:42 and freedom will not be.
32:43 K: So, can the content
of my consciousness, which is the me,
32:49 which is my ego, myself,
my ideations, my thoughts,
32:53 my ambitions, my greeds –
all that is the me – my nation,
32:59 my desire for security, my desire
for pleasure, my desire for sex,
33:04 my desire to do this
and to do that –
33:06 all that is the content
of my consciousness.
33:11 As long as that content remains,
there must be separation
33:17 between you and me,
between good and bad,
33:21 and the whole division
takes place.
33:24 Now, we're saying,
the emptying of that content
33:30 is not a process of time.
33:32 S: Nor is it subject
to methodology.
33:34 K: Methodology.
Then, what is one to do?
33:38 Let's look at it a little,
33:41 take time a little bit over this,
because this is quite important
33:44 because most people say:
'You must practice – you follow? –
33:52 you must strive, you must make
a tremendous effort,
33:55 live disciplined, control,
33:59 S: I am very familiar
with all of that.
34:01 K: That's all out!
34:04 S: That has not been helpful.
34:06 K: Not at all.
S: No, no.
34:08 K: So, how is the content
to be emptied
34:11 with one stroke, as it were?
34:15 S: I would say – and maybe
we could pursue this together –
34:19 the content cannot be emptied
by a negative action
34:25 of repudiation of the content.
K: No, no. Obviously.
34:28 S: So that is a blind alley,
we must not approach it that way.
34:32 K: Obviously. By denying it,
you are putting it under the carpet.
34:35 I mean, it is like locking it up.
It is still there.
34:38 S: It's a pretence.
K: That's just it, sir.
34:43 One has to see this. One has to be
tremendously honest in this.
34:50 Otherwise one plays tricks upon
oneself, one deceives oneself.
34:55 I see clearly, logically, that the me
is the mischief in the world.
35:03 S: Well, I don't see that so logically
as simply intuitively.
35:07 K: All right.
35:09 S: It's not the result
of a discursive act.
35:11 K: No, no.
S: It's not a dialectical…
35:12 K: No, of course not. Not analytical,
dialectic – you see it.
35:15 You see a selfish human being,
whether it's politically high or low,
35:20 you see human beings, selfish,
35:23 and how destructive they are.
35:29 Now the question is,
can this content be emptied,
35:36 so that the mind
is really empty
35:40 and active and
therefore capable of perception?
35:46 S: Probably the content
cannot be simply emptied.
35:51 I think that the content
can be put in a perspective
35:54 or can be seen for its inadequacy,
or its inappropriateness,
36:03 by a very energetic act
of simply seeing.
36:06 That's what I said
in the beginning
36:08 that so long as I look at the truths
of any given religion,
36:13 I am not finding truth itself.
And the way I discover
36:18 the relative value of the truths
of any given religion
36:21 is precisely by seeing truth itself,
in itself, not as an object.
36:26 K: No, I cannot,
the mind cannot perceive truth
36:32 if there is division.
That I must stick to.
36:35 S: Once you have
division of any kind…
36:37 K: That's finished.
36:39 S: …then you're in the categorical
level, and then you will not see.
36:41 K: Therefore my question is whether
the mind can empty its content.
36:49 This is really – you follow?
36:51 S: I follow what you are saying
and I think
36:53 you are devising
a new methodology.
36:55 K: Ah, no, no! I am not
devising a methodology.
36:58 I don't believe in methods.
37:00 I think they are the most
mechanical, destructive things.
37:05 S: But then, after having said that,
then you come back and say
37:08 but if the mind is to…
if the self is really to see
37:15 it must empty itself of content.
Isn't this a method?
37:18 K: No, no.
S: But why, sir, is it not a method?
37:20 K: I'll show you, sir.
It is not a method because we said
37:26 as long as there is division
there must be conflict.
37:30 That is so, politically,
37:33 And we say, division exists
because of the me.
37:39 Me is the content
of my consciousness.
37:42 And that the emptying of the mind
brings unity.
37:52 I see this, not logically
but as fact, not conceptually.
37:57 I see this in the world
taking place and I say,
38:01 'How absurd,
how cruel all this is.'
38:03 And the perception of that
empties the mind.
38:09 The very perceiving
is the act of emptying.
38:14 S: What you're suggesting
is that the perception
38:17 of the inappropriateness of
the content of consciousness
38:21 or of the me, the perception
of the inadequacy of this
38:26 or the truthlessness of the me
is in itself the discovery of being.
38:32 K: That's right. That's right.
S: I think we should pursue that.
38:35 K: We should.
38:37 S: Because I wonder if the perception
is in fact that negative
38:40 or might in fact be very positive.
38:43 That it's rather in the simple seeing
of the being of things,
38:49 – it wouldn't have to be me or you,
in the objective sense,
38:53 it could be this table
or my hand –
38:57 that I discover the inadequacy
of the content of consciousness
39:03 or of these objective sorts of things
like me or you.
39:07 So it may be a rather profound
39:13 display of intellectual,
or rather, personal energy
39:18 that simply makes itself by
reason of the display visible to me.
39:26 It's dissipating and at the same time
it's easy to deal with concepts –
39:30 we've agreed on that –
it's easy to create concepts.
39:34 It's easier, I maintain,
to see simply.
39:39 K: Of course.
S: Prior to concepts.
39:41 K: Seeing.
S: Just simply seeing.
39:44 K: Sir,
39:47 I cannot…
There is no perception
39:49 if that perception
is through an image.
39:54 S: There is no perception if the
perception is through an image.
39:58 I think that is very true.
39:59 K: Now, the mind has images.
40:03 S: The mind is bedevilled
with images.
40:05 K: That's just it. It has images.
I have an image of you
40:10 and you have an image of me.
40:14 These images are built
through contact, through relationship,
40:20 through your saying this,
your hurting me,
40:23 you know, it's built, it is there!
Which is memory.
40:29 The brain cells themselves
are the residue of memory
40:34 which is the image formation.
40:39 Now, the question then is:
40:47 memory, which is knowledge,
is necessary to function –
40:53 technically, to walk home,
or drive home, I need memory.
41:00 Therefore memory
has a place as knowledge.
41:04 And knowledge as image
has no place
41:11 in relationship
between human beings.
41:15 S: I still think that we are
avoiding the issue at hand.
41:19 Because I think what you have said
relative to the question of memory
41:24 is, as you have suggested,
terribly important
41:26 but I don't think that memory,
41:30 or the repudiation of memory
by consciousness,
41:33 or the repudiation
of the content of consciousness
41:35 is the solution of the problem.
I think what we have to do is say
41:40 how is it, Krishnaji, that you –
41:44 I'm not talking methodology now –
but I know that you have seen.
41:47 How is it that you saw,
or that you see?
41:52 And don't tell me
what you eliminated
41:55 in order to describe to me
how you see.
41:57 K: I'll tell you how I saw.
You simply see!
42:00 S: Yes, now, suppose
you wanted to say to someone
42:03 who had no such experience,
'You simply see'.
42:06 Because I say the same thing
myself all the time,
42:09 'Well, you simply see'
42:11 and people say,
'You simply see, how?'
42:14 And we must,
if we are to be teachers,
42:18 deal with this:
'Let me take you by the hand
42:21 and I will show you
how to see.'
42:23 K: I'll show you.
I think that's fairly simple.
42:30 First of all, one has to see
what the world is,
42:35 see what is around you.
42:39 See. Don't take sides.
42:42 S: Yes. I think our terminology
may get in the way here.
42:47 Suppose rather than say, 'One must
start by seeing what the world is'
42:51 we were able to start by saying,
'One must see the world.'
42:56 Not concerned
with natures or categories.
42:58 K: No, no. See the world.
S: Yes, no whats.
43:00 K: See the world.
S: See the world.
43:02 K: Same thing – see the world.
S: Yes.
43:03 K: See the world as it is.
43:05 Don't translate it
in terms of your concepts.
43:10 S: Now, again, could I say,
'See the world as it is is-ing?'
43:15 K: Yes, put it…
43:17 S: Does that help?
I mean, we are trying to…
43:19 K: See the world as it is.
You cannot see the world as it is
43:23 if you interpret it in your
terminology, in your categories,
43:30 in your temperament,
in your prejudices. See it as it is,
43:35 violent, brutal, whatever it is.
S: Or good or beautiful.
43:40 K: Whatever it is. Can you look at it
that way? Which means
43:44 can you look at a tree
without the image of the tree –
43:50 botanical and all the naming –
just look at the tree?
43:55 S: And once you have discovered
– and it's not easy
44:00 in our world to discover –
the simple experience
44:05 of seeing the tree without thinking
tree-ness, or its nature,
44:10 or, as you say, its botany
and things of that kind,
44:13 then what would you suggest is the
next step in the pursuit of seeing?
44:18 K: Then seeing myself as I am.
44:24 S: Underneath the content
of your consciousness.
44:26 K: Seeing all, not underneath.
I haven't begun yet. I see what I am.
44:31 Therefore self-knowing. There
must be an observation of myself
44:39 as I am, without saying: how
terrible, how ugly, how beautiful,
44:44 how sentimental. Just to be aware,
of all the movement of myself
44:54 conscious
as well as unconscious.
44:58 I begin with the tree.
Not a process. I see that.
45:04 And also I must see, this way,
45:09 The hypocrisy, the tricks I play
– you follow? – the whole of that.
45:14 Watchfulness, without any choice
– just watch.
45:20 Know myself.
Knowing myself all the time.
45:24 S: But in a non-analytical
45:27 K: Of course. But the mind
is trained to be analytical.
45:35 So I have to pursue that.
Why am I analytical?
45:39 Watch it.
See the futility of it.
45:43 It takes time, analysis,
45:46 and you can never really analyze,
by a professional or by yourself,
45:52 so see the futility of it,
the absurdity of it, the danger of it.
45:56 So, what are you doing?
45:58 You are seeing things as they are,
actually what is taking place.
46:07 S: My tendency would be to say
that when we discuss this
46:12 we may use these words like,
'Seeing the self in its fullness
46:19 with all of its negative
and positive polarities.'
46:22 Seeing the self in its fullness
and then realizing the futility of…
46:27 analytically looking at
certain dimensions of the self
46:32 and then saying,
'But I still must see.'
46:34 K: Of course.
46:35 S: Because at this point I have not
yet seen. Because all I have seen
46:38 are the analytical categories
I've used to take myself apart
46:41 somehow or other,
in little pieces.
46:44 K: That's why I said – can you look
at the tree without the knowledge?
46:48 S: Without the prior conditioning.
K: Prior conditioning.
46:51 Can you look? Can you look at
a flower, and without any word?
46:59 S: I can see how one must
be able to look at the self.
47:05 I must be able to look
at you, Krishnamurti,
47:09 and not use the word
47:11 Otherwise I will not see you.
K: That's right.
47:13 S: This is true.
47:14 Now, after I have learned,
through thinking
47:18 to say, 'I must see you
and not even use the word', then...
47:25 K: The word, the form,
the image,
47:28 the content of that image,
and all the rest of it.
47:32 S: Yes. Whatever the word
denotes, I must not use.
47:34 K: Sir, that requires
tremendous watchfulness.
47:38 S: Yes. It requires…
47:41 K: Watchfulness in the sense,
not correction,
47:44 not saying, 'I must, I must not'
– watching.
47:51 S: When you use the word 'watching'
– and again
47:54 because we are teaching,
we must be careful of our words…
47:57 K: Being aware – doesn't matter
what word you use.
48:01 S: Watching has the connotation of
observation, and observation has
48:06 the connotation of putting
something out there to look at
48:09 under a microscope,
as a scientist would do.
48:11 And I think this is what
we don't want to teach.
48:13 K: No, of course, of course.
48:15 S: So now, if you could use again,
Krishnaji, the word 'watching'…
48:21 K: Instead of watching, being
aware, choicelessly aware.
48:25 S: Choicelessly aware.
Fine. All right.
48:27 K: That's right.
S: This we must do.
48:29 K: Yes. Choicelessly aware of...
48:41 ... of this dualistic, analytical,
conceptual way of living.
48:47 Be aware of it.
Don't correct it,
48:51 don't say:'This is right'
– be aware of it.
48:54 And, sir, we are aware of this,
so intensely, when there is a crisis.
49:04 S: We have another problem
that precedes this one by an inch.
49:09 I think the other problem is:
what kinds of questions
49:14 can I ask myself
in order to be aware of you
49:21 and not use the categories,
or to be aware of the fact
49:24 that, in being aware of you,
I am using the categories
49:26 and the stereotypes
and all these other funny images
49:29 that I use all the time.
Is there some way in which
49:33 I can address myself to you,
using certain kinds of words,
49:39 not ideas, words that
don't relate to ideas at all,
49:44 using certain kinds of words
that don't relate to ideas,
49:47 that somehow they will teach me
– or teach you or whomsoever –
49:51 that there is
something more important,
49:54 of more significance in you
than your name, or your nature,
49:59 or your content, your consciousness,
or your good or your evil?
50:03 What words would you use
if you were to teach
50:07 a young person, or an old person
– we all have the problem –
50:10 what words would you use in
order to make it understandable
50:15 in a non-rational or, better,
in a pre-rational way
50:20 that you are more
than your name connotes?
50:25 K: I would use that word,
I think: be choicelessly aware.
50:30 S: Choiceless.
50:31 K: To be choicelessly aware.
Because to choose, as we do,
50:38 is one of our great conflicts.
50:42 S: And we, for some strange reason,
associate choice with freedom
50:46 which is the antithesis
of freedom.
50:48 K: It's absurd, of course!
S: It's absurd, yes.
50:52 But now, so then
to be freely aware.
50:55 K: Yes. Freely, choicelessly.
50:57 S: In the sense of choicelessness,
freely aware.
51:00 S: Now, suppose that someone
would want to say
51:03 'But, sir, I don't understand
completely what you mean
51:09 by choicelessly aware,
can you show me what you mean?'
51:13 K: I'll show you. First of all,
51:17 choice implies duality.
51:23 S: Choice implies duality, yes.
51:25 K: But there is choice:
I choose that carpet
51:28 better than the other carpet.
At that level choice must exist.
51:33 But when there is
an awareness of yourself,
51:39 choice implies duality,
choice implies effort.
51:46 S: Choice implies a highly developed
consciousness of limitation.
51:51 K: Yes, yes. Choice
implies also conformity.
51:57 S: Choice implies conformity
– cultural conditioning.
52:01 K: Conformity.
Conformity means imitation.
52:03 S: Yes.
52:04 K: Imitation means more conflict,
trying to live up to something.
52:09 So there must be an understanding
of that word,
52:14 not only verbally but inwardly,
the meaning of it,
52:17 the significance of it.
That is, I understand
52:21 the full significance of choice,
the entire choice.
52:26 S: May I attempt
to translate this now?
52:28 K: Yes.
S: Would you say
52:30 that choiceless awareness means
that I am somehow or other
52:35 conscious of your presence
to the within of me
52:42 and I don't need the choice?
The choice is irrelevant,
52:45 the choice is abstract, the choice
has to do with the categories
52:49 when I don't feel, having seen you,
that I must choose you,
52:55 or choose to like you,
or choose to love you,
52:57 that no choice is involved.
52:59 Then would you say I have
choiceless awareness of you?
53:02 K: Yes, but you see, sir,
53:07 Is there in love, choice?
53:14 I love. Is there choice?
53:17 S: There is no choice in love.
53:19 K: No, that's just it. Choice
is a process of the intellect.
53:26 I explain this as much as we
can, discuss it, go into it,
53:30 but I see the significance of it.
53:33 Now, to be aware.
What does that mean, to be aware?
53:37 To be aware of things about you,
53:41 and also to be aware inwardly,
what is happening, your motives.
53:45 – to be aware, again choicelessly:
watch, look, listen,
53:53 so that you are watching
without any movement of thought.
54:02 The thought is the image,
thought is the word.
54:06 To watch without...
54:11 ...without thought coming
and pushing you in any direction.
54:16 Just to watch.
54:19 S: I think you used a better
word before, when you said…
54:22 K: Aware.
S: To be aware.
54:24 K: Yes, sir.
S: Because it is
54:25 an act of existence
rather than an act of the mind
54:28 or the feeling.
K: Of course, of course.
54:30 S: So then we have to… I have
to somehow or other become
54:34 eventually, and therefore be
aware, in a pre-cognitive sense
54:41 of your presence.
K: Be aware. That's right.
54:43 S: And this antecedes choice.
K: Yes.
54:45 S: And it makes choice
54:48 K: There is no choice
– be aware. There is no choice.
54:50 S: Be aware.
Choiceless awareness.
54:52 K: Now, from there,
there is an awareness of the me.
55:02 Awareness, how hypocritical
– you know –
55:07 the whole of the movement
of the me and the you.
55:11 S: Sir, you're moving backwards
now, we've already…
55:14 K: Purposely. I know. I moved
so that we relate it to.
55:17 So that there is this quality
of mind that is free from the me
55:25 and therefore no separation.
I don't say, 'We are one'
55:31 but we discover the unity as a
living thing, not a conceptual thing,
55:38 when there is
this sense of choiceless attention.
55:44 S: Yes.