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
themselves
  
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,
nothing!
  
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,
obviously.
  
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,
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!
  
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
backwards
  
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,
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
  
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,
religiously.
  
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.
Right?
  
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,
myself.
  
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
fashion.
  
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
'Krishnamurti'.
  
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,
outwardly,
  
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
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.
  
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.