Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SD72CES1 - Goodness only flowers in freedom
San Diego, California - 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. For the past 40 years he has been speaking in the United States, Europe, India, Australia and other parts of the world. From the outset of his life's work he repudiated all connections with organised religions and ideologies and said that his only concern was to set man absolutely, unconditionally free. He is the author of many books, among them The Awakening of Intelligence, The Urgency of Change Freedom From the Known, and The Flight of the Eagle. In dialogue with Krishnamurti is the Rev. Eugene J. Schallert of the Society of Jesuits, the Director of the Center for Sociological Research at the University of San Francisco where Father Schallert is an Associate Professor of Sociology.
1:02 S: I think we should perhaps start by exploring with each other the discovery of that which is most real in the world in which we live and how we learn to see that which is most real.
1:24 K: Sir, would you consider that to see very clearly the whole complex human problem not only politically, religiously, socially but also the inward morality, a sense of otherness – if we can use that word – mustn't one have total freedom?
2:06 S: Yes, I don't see how one can possibly explore anything of relevance to the world in which we live in the absence of a recognition or an awareness of his own inner freedom. To feel that we are limited, or constricted in our approach to social, economic, political, moral problems – particularly our religious problems – that we can't explore these from some other base than the real base which is the base of being free.
2:43 K: But most religions and most cultures whether Asiatic, India or Europe and therefore America, they conditioned the mind a great deal. And you notice it, as one travels around, how, in each country, in each culture, they have taken tremendous pain to shape the mind.
3:16 S: I suppose this is the function of culture, to shape the mind, – not very effective – but it is the function of culture to provide in a sense a buffer between the overwhelming dimensions of human existence, which then would transcend and encompass all existence, and which becomes an overwhelming experience for a person. Cultures do, in a sense, soften, or attempt to make culture manageable, or doable in some way or another.
3:47 K: Yes, but I was thinking really: when one considers how the world is divided politically, religiously, socially, morally, and especially in the religious field which should be the unifying factor of all cultures, there one sees how religions have separated man: the Catholic, the Protestant, the Hindu, the Muslim, and they're all saying, 'We're all seeking one thing.'
4:28 S: Even within the framework of any given religion there is a great tendency for people to divide one subgroup against another subgroup and this seems to be indigenous to...
4:40 K: Therefore freedom is the negation of being conditioned by any culture, by any religious division or political division.
4:58 S: I would think that ultimate freedom is the negation of such a condition. The struggle for freedom is precisely the attempt to break through or undercut or get at that which underlies these various conditioning processes. The conditioning processes themselves go on in each human being, or in each flower, or in each animal and the task in the pursuit of freedom is precisely 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 and across space is quite varied, as you know. Conditioning, for example, in the Western world of today, has been achieved primarily through the process of the enlightenment of rational-logical processes which I suppose are productive. Without rational processes we wouldn't have television cameras to talk on. The same time with television cameras we may not see anything. So I suspect that what we are dealing with, in our world, as a primary conditioning agency, is the whole world of the kinds of thoughts or categories or concepts or constructs – I call them fantasies – 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, with living in a world in which this terrible violence, the separation, the brutality etc., is to end, it seems to me that it is the function of any serious religious man 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. And instead of bringing man together, religions have separated man.
7:37 S: I'm not sure that that's quite right. I think that religion has been defined by cultures as a unifying force between men. There's not an awful lot of evidence in history that it has ever achieved this particular function. This may also be a function of the limiting dimensions of any given religion, or the inability of religious people to transcend their own religious concepts or their own religious legends or myths or dogmas, whatever you want to call them. 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. My mind won't go very, very deeply 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 – consciousness, experience, something – a sense of his inner freedom before he can be appropriately religious, before he can allow religious categories as analytical categories, to have any meaning for him. Somehow he must be human and free before he can ever think 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 actually, not conceptually, but the actual fact of separation, wars, the terrible violence that is pervading the world right through, I feel it is the religious mind that can bring real unity to human beings.
9:31 S: I would say rather it's the human mind, or the seeing mind, that may be susceptible to some exhilaration, if you will, not in the sense of stimulus but some exhilaration relative to the phenomenon of being itself, that can bring people together or achieve an end to the conflicts...
9:53 K: Could we approach it by asking what separates man ? 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 as men, or human, rather than as being, separates us from the world in which we live – from the tree, the flower, the sunset, the sea, the lake, the river, 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, these separative religions. I want to get at something, sir, which is, is reality or truth to be approached through any particular religion or is it approachable or perceivable only when the organized religious belief and propaganda, dogma, 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 for a lot of other reasons that are posterior to the phenomenon of being human in the first place, or being, simply, in the first place. If we're going to get at the question of truth, which is the question of understanding or seeing, we have to first of all get at the question of being, and the whole inner dynamics and evolutionary characters of being. If we can't get at that level, in the beginning, we really won't get at whatever value the 'teachings' of the various religions offer men. If those teachings are not relevant to existence, to being, to seeing, to understanding, to loving, or to an end of conflict, in the negative sense, 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, the fact remains, if one is born a Hindu or a Muslim and he is conditioned by that, in that culture in that behavioural pattern, and conditioned by a series of beliefs, imposed, carefully cultivated by the various religious orders, sanctions, books, etc., and another is conditioned by Christianity, there is no meeting point, except conceptually.
13:15 S: Krishnaji, do you mean that in order for a man to be free, simply, he will have to rid himself of whatever religious – and particularly religious – but also political and cultural and social doctrines or dogmas or myths that he has associated with himself as a religious person?
13:38 K: That's right. Because you see, after all, what is important in living is unity, harmony between human beings. That can only come about if there is harmony in each one. And that harmony is not possible if there is any form of division inside and outside – externally or internally. Externally, if there is political division geographical division, national division, obviously there must be conflict. And if there is inward division obviously it must breed a great conflict, which expresses itself in violence, brutality, aggressiveness, etc. So, human beings are brought up in this way. A Hindu, a Muslim are at each other all the time, or the Arab and the Jew, or the American, the Russian – you follow? – this outwardly.
14:49 S: I think what we are dealing with here is not so much the imposition of harmony on the human being from without or the imposition of disharmony on the human being. My hands are perfectly harmonious with each other, fingers move together and my eyes move with my hands. There may be conflict in my mind, or between my mind and my feelings, 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 is that there is in fact harmony within me. And If I am to be one with you I must discover from my hand 'Hand, tell me what it's like to be a part of something.' Because my hand is already harmoniously existing with my arm and with my body, and with you. But then my mind sets up these strange dualities.
15:47 K: So, that's the problem, sir. Are these dualities created artificially, first of all – because you are a Protestant, I am a Catholic, or I am a communist and you are a capitalist – are they created artificially because each society has its own vested interest, each group has its own particular form of security? Or is the division created in oneself by the me and the not me? 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 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, his greed, his ambition, or, on the other side of the fence, his security, or even his peace, in a superficial sense, the more unconscious he is of the inner self who is in fact 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. Because the Hindus have maintained, as most religions have, that in you there is harmony, there is God, there is reality. In you. And all that you have to do is peel off the layers of corruption, the layers of hypocrisy, the layers of stupidity, and gradually come to that point where you are established in harmony – because you've already got it.
17:56 S: The Hindus don't have a monopoly on that particular way of thinking. We Catholics have the same problem.

K: Same problem, of course.
18:05 S: We are confronted with a discovery with the discovery of seeing, of understanding, of loving, of trusting – all these primary sorts of words we're confronted with the discovering of these things. And peeling back layers, I don't think is the way of discovering them. Whether it be layers of corruption, of goodness or evil, whatever, that is not the way of discovering them. One does not abstract from or pretend away his sense of evil within himself in order to find himself. 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, with all the mischief that one is brought up in or one lives in, is it possible to put all that aside without effort? Because the moment there is effort there is distortion.
19:14 S: I am sure that is true. Without effort, that is, activity, behaviour, too much conversation, but certainly 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 between what is right and what is wrong, between what is called evil and what's called good. If I am trying to be good then I create friction. So the problem is, really, how to have this abundance of energy which will come without any conflict? 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 that you use it there – one tries to be good – 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 of any religious sanctions or any religious beliefs.
20:46 S: Or political or economic. There's no question about this. Then if we're going to discover the inner meaning of freedom, and of goodness, and of being, we have to say to ourselves the reason we have not discovered this or one of the reasons why we have not discovered this is because we have within ourselves this strange tendency to start with the surface of things and never to end. We stop there, where we started.
21:19 K: Sir, could we come to this: suppose you and I know nothing, no religion...

S: We have no conception...
21:34 K: …no conceptual idea at all. I have no belief, no dogma, nothing! And I want to find out how to live rightly, how to be good – 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? I can only observe... 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 then I perceive, then there is perception.
22:29 S: In any seeing that is more than conceptual or categorical seeing, or observing mental constructs, in any seeing that takes place, a truth is encountered. 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 as though it were associated with the logical consistency of categories? Rather than think about truth as though it were associated with my being itself. If I have to always partialize my world – we spoke of the dualities – like we do or did in the Catholic religion, the duality of body and soul.

K: And devil, good and…
23:19 S: And good and evil incarnate in one form or another. 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, or to be truthful, or to be at all. I think this is the problem, and, as you suggested, there are so many centuries of cultural conditioning from all perspectives, that it is difficult.
23:44 K: I mean, human beings are brought up in this dualistic way of living, obviously.
23:50 S: Yes, and maybe we could do this better if we could not consider the obvious dualities of good and evil, of the sacred and the profane, of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, none of these dualities but somehow come to grips with the duality that bedevils us the most: 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? What is the source of this division as me and you, we and they, politically – you follow?
24:37 S: There cannot be any source of this in us because we are one, 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', that's an assumption. I don't know I am one. Actually, the division exists. Only when the division ceases, then I can say 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 there is only – as human beings live – there is me and you, my god and your god, my country and your country, my doctrine, you follow? This me and you, me and you. 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, the conditioned entity brought about, nurtured, through the culture, through society, through religion, through conceptual, ideological living. The me that is selfish, the me that gets angry, violent, me that says, 'I love you', 'I don't love' – all that is me. That me is the root of separation.
26:10 S: Unquestionably. In fact, the very terminology you use betrays the substance of your idea. The word 'me' is an objective pronoun. Once I have made of myself something out there to look at, I shall never see anything which is real because I am not out there to look at. Once I make freedom something out there to pursue, then I shall never achieve freedom. Once I make freedom something out there that someone will give me then I shall never achieve freedom.
26:43 K: No, no. All authority, all that can be pushed aside. There is me and you. As long as this division exists 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 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 whether this me can end, so that 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. Is it possible to completely empty the mind of the me? Not only at the conscious level but deep, at the deep unconscious roots of one's being.
27:47 S: I think it's not only possible but it's the price that we must pay for being, or being good, or being true or being at all, living. To live, the price we must pay is to rid ourselves of me, me-ness.
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! Now, this we must be very clear, because all the religions have maintained processes. The whole evolutionary system, psychologically, is a process. If you say – and to me that is a reality – that it cannot possibly be a process, which means a matter of time, degree, gradualness, 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. Unquestionably that must be done. We must destroy me-ness.
29:07 K: No, destroy... I wouldn't use. The ending of the me, with all the accumulation, with all the experiences, what it has accumulated, consciously and unconsciously, can that whole content be thrown out? Not by effort, by me. 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. The me remains.
29:38 S: It is not – clearly in my mind, it is not an act, or an activity of the mind, nor an activity of the will, nor an activity of the feelings, nor an activity of the body, which will help me to see me – no, pardon me – will help me to see.

K: See, yes.
29:59 S: And since we, in this world, are so wrapped up with doing, with having, with acting, we really don't understand reflectively and profoundly what takes place before we act or before we possess. And I think that it is incumbent upon us to reflect backwards and see that there is seeing before seeing takes place – in the two senses of the word seeing – just as there is loving before one becomes aware of loving, and certainly just as there is being before one becomes aware of being.
30:37 K: Yes, sir, but I…
30:40 S: Is the question reflecting backwards deep, inwardly, deeply enough?
30:45 K: Now just a minute, sir, that's the difficulty, because the me is at a conscious level and at the deeper levels of consciousness. Can the conscious mind examine the unconscious me and expose it? Or the content of consciousness is the me!
31:18 S: No, the self transcends the content of consciousness. But the me may well be the content of consciousness. 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, the whole conceptual ideation about myself, the higher self the lower self, the soul: all that is the content of my consciousness 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, that it makes that objective self that I can examine and analyze and look at, compare, that I can be violent with others about. It's explanatory, if you will, or the summation of the whole thing which you put in the word 'me', is explanatory of a history of a whole multiplicity of present relationships but it's still not getting at the reality.
32:23 K: No, the reality cannot be got at, or it cannot flower if the me is there.
32:32 S: Whenever, as I said before, whenever I insist upon viewing you as me, then the reality cannot flower and freedom will not be.
32:43 K: So, can the content of my consciousness, which is the me, which is my ego, myself, my ideations, my thoughts, my ambitions, my greeds – all that is the me – my nation, my desire for security, my desire for pleasure, my desire for sex, my desire to do this and to do that – all that is the content of my consciousness. As long as that content remains, there must be separation between you and me, between good and bad, and the whole division takes place. Now, we're saying, the emptying of that content 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? Let's look at it a little, take time a little bit over this, because this is quite important because most people say: 'You must practice – you follow? – you must strive, you must make a tremendous effort, live disciplined, control, suppress'.
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 with one stroke, as it were?
34:15 S: I would say – and maybe we could pursue this together – the content cannot be emptied by a negative action 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. 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. One has to see this. One has to be tremendously honest in this. Otherwise one plays tricks upon oneself, one deceives oneself. 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. You see a selfish human being, whether it's politically high or low, you see human beings, selfish, and how destructive they are. Now the question is, can this content be emptied, so that the mind is really empty and active and therefore capable of perception?
35:46 S: Probably the content cannot be simply emptied. I think that the content can be put in a perspective or can be seen for its inadequacy, or its inappropriateness, by a very energetic act of simply seeing. That's what I said in the beginning that so long as I look at the truths of any given religion, I am not finding truth itself. And the way I discover the relative value of the truths of any given religion is precisely by seeing truth itself, in itself, not as an object.
36:26 K: No, I cannot, the mind cannot perceive truth 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. This is really – you follow?
36:51 S: I follow what you are saying and I think you are devising a new methodology.
36:55 K: Ah, no, no! I am not devising a methodology. I don't believe in methods. I think they are the most mechanical, destructive things.
37:05 S: But then, after having said that, then you come back and say but if the mind is to… if the self is really to see 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 as long as there is division there must be conflict. That is so, politically, religiously. And we say, division exists because of the me. Me is the content of my consciousness. And that the emptying of the mind brings unity. I see this, not logically but as fact, not conceptually. I see this in the world taking place and I say, 'How absurd, how cruel all this is.' And the perception of that empties the mind. The very perceiving is the act of emptying.
38:14 S: What you're suggesting is that the perception of the inappropriateness of the content of consciousness or of the me, the perception of the inadequacy of this 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 or might in fact be very positive. That it's rather in the simple seeing of the being of things, – it wouldn't have to be me or you, in the objective sense, it could be this table or my hand – that I discover the inadequacy of the content of consciousness or of these objective sorts of things like me or you. So it may be a rather profound display of intellectual, or rather, personal energy that simply makes itself by reason of the display visible to me. It's dissipating and at the same time it's easy to deal with concepts – we've agreed on that – it's easy to create concepts. 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, I cannot… There is no perception if that perception is through an image.
39:54 S: There is no perception if the perception is through an image. 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 and you have an image of me. These images are built through contact, through relationship, through your saying this, your hurting me, you know, it's built, it is there! Which is memory. The brain cells themselves are the residue of memory which is the image formation. Right? Now, the question then is: memory, which is knowledge, is necessary to function – technically, to walk home, or drive home, I need memory. Therefore memory has a place as knowledge. And knowledge as image has no place in relationship between human beings.
41:15 S: I still think that we are avoiding the issue at hand. Because I think what you have said relative to the question of memory is, as you have suggested, terribly important but I don't think that memory, or the repudiation of memory by consciousness, or the repudiation of the content of consciousness is the solution of the problem. I think what we have to do is say how is it, Krishnaji, that you – I'm not talking methodology now – but I know that you have seen. How is it that you saw, or that you see? And don't tell me what you eliminated 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 who had no such experience, 'You simply see'. Because I say the same thing myself all the time, 'Well, you simply see' and people say, 'You simply see, how?' And we must, if we are to be teachers, deal with this: 'Let me take you by the hand and I will show you how to see.'
42:23 K: I'll show you. I think that's fairly simple. First of all, one has to see what the world is, see what is around you. See. Don't take sides.
42:42 S: Yes. I think our terminology may get in the way here. Suppose rather than say, 'One must start by seeing what the world is' we were able to start by saying, 'One must see the world.' 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. 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 if you interpret it in your terminology, in your categories, in your temperament, in your prejudices. See it as it is, 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 can you look at a tree without the image of the tree – botanical and all the naming – just look at the tree?
43:55 S: And once you have discovered – and it's not easy in our world to discover – the simple experience of seeing the tree without thinking tree-ness, or its nature, or, as you say, its botany and things of that kind, 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. Therefore self-knowing. There must be an observation of myself as I am, without saying: how terrible, how ugly, how beautiful, how sentimental. Just to be aware, of all the movement of myself conscious as well as unconscious. I begin with the tree. Not a process. I see that. And also I must see, this way, myself. The hypocrisy, the tricks I play – you follow? – the whole of that. Watchfulness, without any choice – just watch. Know myself. Knowing myself all the time.
45:24 S: But in a non-analytical fashion.
45:27 K: Of course. But the mind is trained to be analytical. So I have to pursue that. Why am I analytical? Watch it. See the futility of it. It takes time, analysis, and you can never really analyze, by a professional or by yourself, so see the futility of it, the absurdity of it, the danger of it. So, what are you doing? 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 we may use these words like, 'Seeing the self in its fullness with all of its negative and positive polarities.' Seeing the self in its fullness and then realizing the futility of… analytically looking at certain dimensions of the self 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 are the analytical categories I've used to take myself apart 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. 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. I must be able to look at you, Krishnamurti, and not use the word 'Krishnamurti'. Otherwise I will not see you.

K: That's right.
47:13 S: This is true. Now, after I have learned, through thinking to say, 'I must see you and not even use the word', then...
47:25 K: The word, the form, the image, 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, not saying, 'I must, I must not' – watching.
47:51 S: When you use the word 'watching' – and again 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 the connotation of putting something out there to look at under a microscope, as a scientist would do. 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 of this dualistic, analytical, conceptual way of living. Be aware of it. Don't correct it, don't say:'This is right' – be aware of it. 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. I think the other problem is: what kinds of questions can I ask myself in order to be aware of you and not use the categories, or to be aware of the fact that, in being aware of you, I am using the categories and the stereotypes and all these other funny images that I use all the time. Is there some way in which I can address myself to you, using certain kinds of words, not ideas, words that don't relate to ideas at all, using certain kinds of words that don't relate to ideas, that somehow they will teach me – or teach you or whomsoever – that there is something more important, of more significance in you than your name, or your nature, or your content, your consciousness, or your good or your evil? What words would you use if you were to teach a young person, or an old person – we all have the problem – what words would you use in order to make it understandable in a non-rational or, better, in a pre-rational way 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, is one of our great conflicts.
50:42 S: And we, for some strange reason, associate choice with freedom which is the antithesis of freedom.
50:48 K: It's absurd, of course!

S: It's absurd, yes. 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 'But, sir, I don't understand completely what you mean by choicelessly aware, can you show me what you mean?'
51:13 K: I'll show you. First of all, choice implies duality.
51:23 S: Choice implies duality, yes.
51:25 K: But there is choice: I choose that carpet better than the other carpet. At that level choice must exist. But when there is an awareness of yourself, 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. So there must be an understanding of that word, not only verbally but inwardly, the meaning of it, the significance of it. That is, I understand 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 that choiceless awareness means that I am somehow or other conscious of your presence to the within of me and I don't need the choice? The choice is irrelevant, the choice is abstract, the choice has to do with the categories when I don't feel, having seen you, that I must choose you, or choose to like you, or choose to love you, that no choice is involved. Then would you say I have choiceless awareness of you?
53:02 K: Yes, but you see, sir, Is there in love, choice? 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. I explain this as much as we can, discuss it, go into it, but I see the significance of it. Now, to be aware. What does that mean, to be aware? To be aware of things about you, outwardly, and also to be aware inwardly, what is happening, your motives. – to be aware, again choicelessly: watch, look, listen, so that you are watching without any movement of thought. The thought is the image, thought is the word. To watch without without thought coming and pushing you in any direction. 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 an act of existence rather than an act of the mind or the feeling.

K: Of course, of course.
54:30 S: So then we have to… I have to somehow or other become eventually, and therefore be aware, in a pre-cognitive sense 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 unnecessary.
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. Awareness, how hypocritical – you know – 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. So that there is this quality of mind that is free from the me and therefore no separation. I don't say, 'We are one' but we discover the unity as a living thing, not a conceptual thing, when there is this sense of choiceless attention.
55:44 S: Yes.