Krishnamurti Subtitles

Knowledge and the transformation of man

San Diego - 18 February 1974

Conversation with A.W. Anderson 1



0:37 Krishnamurti in Dialogue
with Dr. Allan W. Anderson
  
0:42 J. Krishnamurti was
born in South India
  
0:45 and educated in England.
 
0:47 For the past 40 years
 
0:48 he has been speaking
in the United States,
  
0:50 Europe, India, Australia,
and other parts of the world.
  
0:55 From the outset of his life's work
 
0:56 he repudiated all connections
 
0:58 with organised
religions and ideologies
  
1:01 and said that his only concern was
 
1:03 to set man absolutely
unconditionally free.
  
1:07 He is the author of many books,
 
1:09 among them The Awakening
of Intelligence,
  
1:12 The Urgency of Change,
 
1:14 Freedom From the Known,
and The Flight of the Eagle.
  
1:19 This is one of a series of dialogues
 
1:21 between Krishnamurti and
Dr. Allan W. Anderson,
  
1:24 who is professor of
religious studies
  
1:26 at San Diego State University
 
1:28 where he teaches Indian
and Chinese scriptures
  
1:30 and the oracular tradition.
 
1:33 Dr. Anderson, a published
poet, received his degree
  
1:37 from Columbia University
 
1:38 and the Union Theological Seminary.
 
1:40 He has been honoured
 
1:42 with the distinguished
Teaching Award
  
1:43 from the California
State University.
  
1:48 A: Mr. Krishnamurti, I was very taken
 
1:51 with a recent statement of yours,
 
1:53 in which you said that
it's the responsibility
  
1:57 of each human being to bring
about his own transformation,
  
2:04 which is not dependent
on knowledge or time.
  
2:08 And if it's agreeable with you
 
2:09 I thought it would
be a splendid thing
  
2:12 if we explored together
the general
  
2:15 area of transformation itself,
 
2:19 and after we have done that,
 
2:21 perhaps the other related areas
 
2:23 would begin to fall into place
 
2:26 and we could bring about
in conversation
  
2:27 a relationship among them.
 
2:31 K: Don't you think, sir,
 
2:38 considering
what's happening in the world,
  
2:44 in India, in Europe,
and in America,
  
2:49 the general degeneration
in literature, in art,
  
2:56 and specially
in the deep cultural sense,
  
3:02 in the sense - religion...
 
3:04 A: Yes.
 
3:05 K: ...there is
a traditional approach,
  
3:13 a mere acceptance
of authority, belief,
  
3:20 which is not really
the religious spirit.
  
3:25 Seeing all this, the confusion,
 
3:28 the great misery,
 
3:31 the sense of infinite sorrow,
 
3:40 any observant
and most serious people would say
  
3:46 that this society cannot
possibly be changed except
  
3:56 only when the individual,
the human being,
  
4:00 really transforms himself
radically,
  
4:05 that is, regenerates himself
fundamentally.
  
4:11 And the responsibility of that
 
4:14 depends on the human being,
not on the mass,
  
4:19 or on the priests,
or on a church, or a temple,
  
4:22 or mosque, or whatever,
 
4:23 but on a human being,
 
4:25 who is aware of
this enormous confusion,
  
4:31 politically,
religiously, economically,
  
4:34 in every direction
there is such misery,
  
4:42 such unhappiness.
 
4:46 And when you see that,
 
4:49 it is a very serious thing
 
4:56 to ask oneself
 
4:58 whether a human being,
like oneself or another,
  
5:03 whether he can really deeply
 
5:06 undergo
a radical transformation.
  
5:10 And when that question
is put to him
  
5:17 and when he sees
his responsibility
  
5:20 in relation to the whole,
 
5:22 then perhaps we can discuss
 
5:26 what relationship
has knowledge, and time,
  
5:33 in the transformation of man.
 
5:36 A: I quite follow.
 
5:39 We need then
to lay some groundwork
  
5:41 in order to move into
the question itself.
  
5:44 K: Because most people
 
5:48 are not concerned
with the world at all.
  
5:51 Most people are not concerned
seriously with the events,
  
5:57 with the chaos, with the
mess in the world at present.
  
6:02 They are only concerned
very superficially:
  
6:05 the problem of energy, problem
of pollution, and so on,
  
6:11 such superficial things.
 
6:13 But they are really
not deeply concerned
  
6:16 with the human mind,
 
6:21 the mind that is
destroying the world.
  
6:25 A: Yes, I quite follow.
 
6:28 What you have said places
in a very cardinal way
  
6:32 the radical responsibility
on the individual as such,
  
6:36 if I've understood
you correctly. K: Yes.
  
6:38 A: There are no Five-Year plans
 
6:39 that we can expect
to help us out.
  
6:42 K: You see, the word
'individual' is really
  
6:44 not a correct word,
 
6:46 because individual,
as you know, sir, means
  
6:50 undivided,
indivisible in himself.
  
6:55 But human beings
are totally fragmented,
  
6:58 therefore
they are not individuals.
  
7:00 They may have a bank
account, a name, a house,
  
7:03 but they are not really
individuals in the sense
  
7:06 a total, complete, harmonious,
whole, unfragmented.
  
7:13 That is really what it
means to be an individual.
  
7:17 A: Would you say then
that to move, or make passage,
  
7:22 or perhaps a better word
simply would be 'change'
  
7:25 since we are not talking
about time,
  
7:27 from this fragmented state
 
7:31 to one of wholeness,
which could be regarded
  
7:36 as a change in the level
of the being of the person.
  
7:40 K: Yes.
A: Could we say that?
  
7:42 K: Yes, but you see, again,
the word 'whole' implies
  
7:47 not only sanity,
 
7:53 health, and also the word
'whole' means holy, h-o-l-y.
  
8:00 All that's implied in
that one word 'whole'.
  
8:04 And human beings
are never whole.
  
8:10 They are fragmented,
they are contradictory,
  
8:14 they are torn apart
by various desires.
  
8:20 So, when we talk of
an individual,
  
8:24 the individual
is really a human being
  
8:28 who is totally,
completely whole,
  
8:33 sane, healthy,
and therefore holy.
  
8:39 And to bring about
such a human being
  
8:44 is our responsibility :
in education,
  
8:48 politically,
religiously, in every way.
  
8:54 And therefore it is the
responsibility of the educator,
  
8:58 of everybody, not just
myself, my responsibility,
  
9:03 it is your responsibility as
well as mine, as well as his.
  
9:08 A: It's everyone's responsibility.
K: Absolutely,
  
9:11 because we have created
this awful mess in the world.
  
9:15 A: But the individual is the
one who must make the start.
  
9:19 K: A human being,
each human being.
  
9:22 It does not matter whether he is a
 
9:24 politician, or a businessman,
 
9:26 or just an ordinary person
like me, in the street,
  
9:31 it's our business
as a human being
  
9:34 to realise
the enormous suffering,
  
9:39 misery, confusion
there is in the world.
  
9:42 And it's our responsibility
to change all that,
  
9:45 not the politicians,
not the businessman,
  
9:48 not the scientist.
It's our responsibility.
  
9:52 A: When we say
'our responsibility'
  
9:57 and we have two uses of
the word 'individual' now.
  
10:00 There is the general
use of it, meaning
  
10:05 a quantitative measure...
 
10:07 K: Yes, quantitative measure.
 
10:08 A: ...and then this
qualitative reference
  
10:11 that we simply needed,
 
10:14 it seems to me, to
discern as a possibility.
  
10:19 I am reminded again of the statement
 
10:23 that you made that I quoted earlier,
 
10:26 that it is the responsibility
of each, each human person.
  
10:30 K: Human being, yes.
A: Right.
  
10:31 K: Whether he is in
India, or in England,
  
10:33 or in America, or wherever he is.
 
10:35 A: So we can't slip out of this
 
10:37 by saying we have created this,
 
10:40 therefore we must
change it. K: No, no, no.
  
10:43 A: We get back to, well,
 
10:45 if the change is
going to start at all,
  
10:47 it's going to be
with each. K: Yes, sir.
  
10:49 A: With each.
K: With each human being.
  
10:51 Therefore the question
arises from that :
  
10:58 does a human being realise
with all seriousness
  
11:09 his responsibility
not only to himself,
  
11:15 but to the whole of mankind?
 
11:19 A: It wouldn't appear so
from the way things go on.
  
11:23 K: Obviously not.
Each one is concerned
  
11:25 with his own petty
little selfish desires.
  
11:30 So responsibility implies
 
11:36 tremendous attention,
care, diligence,
  
11:41 not negligence, as
now it is going on.
  
11:46 A: Yes, I do follow that.
 
11:49 The word 'we' that we
used in relation to each
  
11:54 brings about the
suggestion of a relationship
  
11:58 which perhaps we could
pursue here a moment.
  
12:05 There seems to be
something indivisible
  
12:08 apparently between what
we refer to by each,
  
12:13 or the individual person,
 
12:16 as the usage is usually construed.
 
12:19 It seems to be an indivisible
relation between that
  
12:25 and what we call the whole,
 
12:27 which the individual doesn't sense.
 
12:29 K: Sir, as you know, I have
been all over the world
  
12:36 except behind the Iron Curtain
and China-Bamboo Curtain.
  
12:40 I have been all over,
 
12:42 and I have talked to and seen
 
12:44 dozens and thousands of people.
 
12:47 I have been doing this
for 50 years and more.
  
12:52 Human beings,
wherever they live,
  
12:56 are more or less the same.
 
12:59 They have their problems
of sorrow, problems of fear,
  
13:04 problems of livelihood,
 
13:08 problems of
personal relationship,
  
13:12 problems of survival,
overpopulation,
  
13:16 and this enormous problem
of death,
  
13:20 it is a common problem to all of us.
 
13:22 There is no Eastern problem
and Western problem.
  
13:27 The West has its
particular civilisation,
  
13:32 and the East has its own.
 
13:35 And human beings
are caught in this trap.
  
13:40 A: Yes, I follow that.
 
13:42 K: They don't seem to be able
to get out of it.
  
13:46 They are going on and on
for millennia.
  
13:52 A: Therefore the question is :
how does he bring this about
  
13:55 as an each, as a one?
 
13:59 The word 'individual,' as
you have just described,
  
14:02 seems to me
 
14:04 to have a relationship to the
word 'transform' in itself,
  
14:09 And I would like to ask you,
 
14:11 whether you would agree in this.
 
14:16 It seems that many persons
have the notion that
  
14:18 to transform a thing
means to change it utterly
  
14:22 without any relationship
whatsoever to what it is as such.
  
14:28 That would seem to ignore
that we are talking about form
  
14:32 that undergoes a change,
which form itself still abides.
  
14:36 K: Yes, sir, I understand.
A: Otherwise
  
14:38 the change would involve
a loss, a total loss.
  
14:41 K: So are we asking
this question, sir :
  
14:44 what place has knowledge
 
14:49 in the regeneration of man,
 
14:53 in the transformation of man,
 
14:55 in the fundamental,
radical movement in man?
  
15:03 What place has knowledge
and therefore time?
  
15:07 Is that what you are
asking? A: Yes, yes, I am.
  
15:09 Because either
we accept that a change
  
15:14 - that is a genuine change -
 
15:16 means the annihilation
of what preceded it,
  
15:18 or we are talking about
 
15:20 a total transformation
of something that abides.
  
15:24 K: Yes. So let us look at
that word for a minute.
  
15:27 A: Good.
 
15:29 K: Revolution,
 
15:33 in the ordinary sense of
that word means, doesn't it,
  
15:38 not an evolution, gradual
evolution, it's a revolution.
  
15:46 A: It doesn't mean
that, right. I agree.
  
15:50 K: By revolution is generally meant,
 
15:53 if you talk to a communist,
 
15:55 he wants to overthrow
the government,
  
15:58 if you talk to a
bourgeois, he is frightened,
  
16:03 if you talk to an intellectual,
 
16:05 he has various
 
16:11 criticisms about revolution.
 
16:13 Now, revolution is either bloody...
 
16:18 A: Yes.
K: ...or revolution in the psyche.
  
16:23 A: Yes.
K: Outward or inner.
  
16:26 A: Outward or inner.
K: The outward is the inner.
  
16:31 The inner is the outward.
 
16:33 There is not the difference
 
16:34 between the outward and the inner.
 
16:36 They are totally
related to each other.
  
16:38 A: Then this goes back to
what you mentioned earlier
  
16:40 that there is no division,
even though intellectually
  
16:45 you make a distinction
between the I and the we.
  
16:49 K: That's right.
A: Yes, of course.
  
16:50 K: So, when we talk
about change,
  
16:55 we mean not the mere
bloody revolution,
  
17:02 physical revolution,
 
17:04 but rather the revolution
in the makeup of the mind.
  
17:11 A: Of each.
K: Of human beings.
  
17:13 A: Right.
K: The way he thinks,
  
17:16 the way he behaves,
the way he conducts himself,
  
17:19 the way he operates, he functions
- the whole of that.
  
17:26 Now, whether that
psychological revolution
  
17:33 - not evolution
in the sense 'gradualness' -
  
17:36 what place has knowledge
in that?
  
17:41 A: What place has knowledge
in something that occurs...
  
17:45 K: In the regeneration of man,
 
17:49 which is the inward revolution
which will affect the outer.
  
17:55 A: Yes, which is not
a gradual progress.
  
17:57 K: No, obviously. Gradual
process is endless.
  
18:01 A: Exactly.
So we are talking about
  
18:03 an instant qualitative change.
 
18:07 K: Again, when you use
the word 'instant',
  
18:10 it seems as though, oh,
suddenly it is to happen.
  
18:15 That's why
I am rather hesitant
  
18:17 in using the word 'instant'.
 
18:19 We will go into it in a minute.
 
18:21 First of all, sir,
let's be clear
  
18:23 what you and I are
talking about, if we may.
  
18:29 We see objectively
the appalling mess the world is in.
  
18:36 Right? A: Yes.
 
18:38 K: The misery, the confusion,
the deep sorrow of man.
  
18:44 A: Oh yes.
 
18:47 K: I can't tell you what I feel
when I go round the world.
  
18:54 The pettiness, the shallowness,
the emptiness of all this,
  
18:58 of the so-called
Western civilisation,
  
19:01 if I may use that word,
 
19:04 into which the Eastern
civilisation is being dragged.
  
19:10 And we are just scratching
on the surface all the time.
  
19:17 And we think the mere change
on the surface,
  
19:23 change in the structure,
is going to do
  
19:25 something enormous
to human beings.
  
19:27 On the contrary,
it has done nothing!
  
19:32 It polishes a little bit
here and there,
  
19:34 but deeply, fundamentally
it does not change man.
  
19:38 So, when we are discussing
change,
  
19:43 we must be, I think,
fairly clear
  
19:46 that we mean
the change in the psyche,
  
19:50 in the very being
of human beings,
  
19:53 that is, in the very structure
and nature of his thought.
  
19:58 A: The change at the root.
K: At the root, yes.
  
20:00 A: At the root itself.
 
20:02 K: And therefore when
there is that change,
  
20:04 he will naturally bring
about a change in society.
  
20:08 It isn't society first,
 
20:12 or individual first,
 
20:13 it is the human change
which will transform the society.
  
20:18 They are not two separate things.
 
20:21 A: Now I must be very careful
 
20:23 that I understand this precisely.
 
20:27 I think I discern now, why,
in the statement you said,
  
20:32 'which is not dependent
on knowledge or time'.
  
20:36 Because
when this person changes,
  
20:39 this each human being changes,
 
20:43 the change that begins
in society is a change that is
  
20:47 in a non-temporal relationship
with the change
  
20:51 in each human being.
K: That's right.
  
20:54 After all, human beings
have created this society.
  
20:59 By their greed,
by their anger,
  
21:01 by their violence,
by their brutality,
  
21:04 by their pettiness,
they have created this society.
  
21:07 A: Precisely.
K: And they think,
  
21:10 by changing the structure,
 
21:12 you are going to change
the human being.
  
21:14 This has been
the communist problem,
  
21:15 this has been
the eternal problem,
  
21:19 that is, change the environment
then you change man.
  
21:23 They have tried that
in ten different ways
  
21:26 and they haven't done it,
 
21:27 succeeded in changing man.
 
21:29 On the contrary, man conquers
the environment as such.
  
21:35 So, if we are clear
that the outer is the inner,
  
21:42 the inner is the outer,
 
21:44 that there is not the division:
 
21:46 the society and the individual,
 
21:49 the collective and
the separate human being,
  
21:55 but the human being is the whole,
he is the society,
  
22:01 he is the separate human
individual, he is the factor
  
22:07 which brings about this chaos.
 
22:13 A: Yes, I am following
that very closely.
  
22:15 K: Therefore he is the world
and the world is him.
  
22:18 A: Yes. Therefore if he changes,
everything changes.
  
22:24 If he doesn't change,
nothing changes.
  
22:28 K: I think
this is very important,
  
22:30 because we don't realise,
I think,
  
22:34 this basic factor that
 
22:41 we are the world
and the world is us,
  
22:44 that the world is not
something separate from me
  
22:47 and me separate
from the world.
  
22:51 You are born in a culture
 
22:53 - Christian, or Hindu,
 
22:54 or whatever culture
you are born in -
  
22:56 you are the result
of that culture.
  
23:00 And that culture
has produced this world.
  
23:07 The materialistic world of
the West, if one can call it,
  
23:13 which is spreading
all over the world,
  
23:18 destroying their own culture,
their own traditions,
  
23:22 everything
is being swept aside
  
23:25 in the wake of
the Western culture,
  
23:29 and this culture has produced
this human being,
  
23:35 and the human being
has created this culture.
  
23:41 A: Exactly.
K: I mean
  
23:42 he has created the paintings,
the marvellous cathedrals,
  
23:46 the marvellous technological
things, going to the moon,
  
23:50 and so on, so on
- human beings have produced it.
  
23:53 It is the human beings
that have created
  
23:55 the rotten society
in which we live.
  
23:58 It is the immoral society
in which we live,
  
24:01 which human beings
have created.
  
24:04 A: Oh yes, there is
no doubt about that.
  
24:05 K: And therefore
the world is you,
  
24:08 you are the world,
there is no other thing.
  
24:13 If we accept that, if we see that,
not intellectually,
  
24:17 but feel it in your heart,
in your mind,
  
24:19 in your blood
that you are that,
  
24:21 then the question: is it
possible for a human being
  
24:28 to transform himself inwardly
and therefore outwardly?
  
24:34 A: I am very concerned to
see this as clearly as I can,
  
24:41 in terms of two texts
that come to my mind,
  
24:45 which we could say
possess an inner meaning,
  
24:50 and because of this
inner-outer thing
  
24:53 that we have spoken about,
 
24:54 in the divided approach
that is made to scripture,
  
25:00 there is a tremendous irony here.
 
25:02 I am thinking of that
- to me wonderful -
  
25:08 text in St. Johns gospel,
 
25:11 in the third chapter,
which says
  
25:16 - and I will try to translate
this as the Greek has it -
  
25:20 'The one who is doing the truth
is coming to the light'.
  
25:26 It isn't that
he does the truth
  
25:28 and then later he comes
to the light. K: Quite.
  
25:30 A: And it isn't that
 
25:32 we could say from the
pulpit, 'I will tell you
  
25:35 what the truth is,
if you do it,
  
25:37 then you will see the light'.
 
25:40 Because we are back again to what
you mentioned earlier:
  
25:43 the non-temporal relationship
between the action,
  
25:49 which itself is the
transformation... K: Quite.
  
25:53 A: ...and the marvellous
vista of understanding
  
25:57 which is not an 'if then' thing,
but is truly concurrent.
  
26:02 And the other one that
I thought of,
  
26:06 that I was hoping
you might agree
  
26:08 in its saying the same thing,
 
26:09 so that I understand it well
 
26:12 in terms
of what you have said
  
26:16 - and again I will try
to translate it
  
26:19 as literally as I can -
is:
  
26:21 'God is love, and the
one abiding in love
  
26:29 is abiding in God and
God is abiding in him'.
  
26:32 K: Quite, quite.
 
26:34 A: I put the 'ing'
on all those words
  
26:37 because of the character
of the language itself.
  
26:43 One wouldn't want
to translate that for
  
26:45 pulpit reading perhaps,
 
26:47 but that's the real sense of it.
 
26:49 And this 'ing-ing' along
gives the feeling
  
26:52 that there is an activity here
 
26:55 that is not bound temporally.
K: Of course,
  
26:58 it isn't a static state.
 
27:00 It isn't something
you intellectually
  
27:02 accept
and leave it like that.
  
27:04 Then it is death,
there is nothing in it!
  
27:07 A: Yes.
 
27:09 K: That's why, you see, sir,
 
27:15 we have divided
the physical world
  
27:17 as the East and the West.
 
27:19 We have divided religions,
 
27:22 Christian religion and
Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist.
  
27:26 And we have divided the world
into nationalities,
  
27:30 the capitalist and the socialist,
 
27:32 the communist and the
other people, and so on.
  
27:35 We have divided the world
 
27:38 and we have divided ourselves
 
27:43 as Christians, non-Christians,
 
27:46 we have divided ourselves
into fragments
  
27:50 opposing each other,
 
27:52 so where there is a division,
there is conflict.
  
27:57 A: Precisely.
 
27:59 K: I think that is a basic law.
 
28:02 A: Where there is a division,
there is conflict.
  
28:04 But in terms of that word
'knowledge'
  
28:06 it appears that people
believe to start with
  
28:08 that that division is there,
 
28:10 and they operate on
that radical belief.
  
28:12 K: That's why I am saying
it's so important to understand
  
28:16 from the beginning
in our talk, in our dialogue,
  
28:22 that the world
is not different from me
  
28:24 and that I am the world.
 
28:26 It may sound rather...
 
28:30 very simplified, simplistic,
 
28:33 but it has got
very deep fundamental meaning,
  
28:38 if you realise what it means,
 
28:41 not intellectually, but inwardly,
 
28:44 the understanding of it,
therefore there is no division.
  
28:50 The moment I say to myself
 
28:52 and I realise that I am the world
 
28:53 and the world is me,
I am not a Christian, nor a Hindu,
  
28:58 nor a Buddhist
- nothing, I am a human being.
  
29:02 A: I was just thinking
when you were saying that
  
29:07 how certain kinds of
philosophical analysis
  
29:11 would approach that,
 
29:13 and in terms of the spirit
of what you have said,
  
29:16 this really is almost
a cosmic joke,
  
29:20 because on the one hand,
as you said,
  
29:22 it might sound simplistic.
 
29:24 Some would say it is,
 
29:25 therefore we don't have
to pay attention to it,
  
29:27 others would say,
well, it's probably
  
29:30 so much in want of clarity
even though it's profound
  
29:35 that it is
some kind of mysticism.
  
29:38 And we are back and forth
with the division again
  
29:41 as soon as that happens.
K: Again, that's right.
  
29:42 A: So, I do follow you.
 
29:44 K: So, if that is clear,
 
29:48 that human mind
has divided the world
  
29:56 in order to find
its own security,
  
29:59 which brings about
its own insecurity.
  
30:05 When one is aware of that,
 
30:07 then one must - inwardly
as well as outwardly -
  
30:11 deny this division
 
30:15 as we and they, I and you,
 
30:19 the Indian and the European,
and the Communist.
  
30:23 You cut at the very root
of this division.
  
30:27 Therefore, from that
arises the question:
  
30:33 can the human mind,
 
30:36 which has been so conditioned
for millennia,
  
30:40 can that human mind,
 
30:43 which has acquired
so much knowledge
  
30:46 in so many directions,
 
30:49 can that human mind change,
 
30:54 bring about a regeneration
in itself,
  
31:02 and be free to reincarnate now?
 
31:12 A: Now.
K: Now.
  
31:13 A: Yes.
K: That is the question.
  
31:15 A: That is the question,
 
31:17 exactly, reincarnate now.
 
31:22 It would appear from what you
have said that one could say
  
31:24 that the vast amount of
represented knowledge,
  
31:33 an accretion of centuries,
 
31:36 is a discussion we have
been having with ourselves,
  
31:41 regardless of which culture
we are speaking about,
  
31:44 as a commentary on this division.
 
31:47 K: Absolutely.
 
31:48 A: And without really
grasping the division itself.
  
31:53 And of course since the division
is infinitely divisible...
  
31:56 K: Of course,
the moment you divide...
  
31:59 A: Exactly. Then we can have
tome after tome after tome,
  
32:02 libraries after libraries,
mausoleums of books without end,
  
32:07 because we are continually
dividing the division.
  
32:09 K: That's right.
A: Yes, I follow you.
  
32:11 K: And you see, that's why
 
32:17 culture is different
from civilisation.
  
32:21 Culture implies growth.
 
32:25 A: Oh yes, oh yes.
 
32:28 K: Now, growth in the
flowering of goodness.
  
32:36 A: A lovely phrase, lovely phrase.
 
32:39 K: That is culture, real culture,
 
32:43 the flowering in goodness,
you understand, sir?
  
32:46 And that doesn't exist.
 
32:50 We have civilisation:
you can travel
  
32:53 from India to America
in a few hours,
  
32:56 you have better bathrooms,
 
32:58 better this and better that,
and so on,
  
33:00 with all the complications
that it involves.
  
33:03 That has been
the Western culture
  
33:06 which is absorbing the East now.
 
33:08 So goodness
is the very essence of culture.
  
33:16 Religion is
the transformation of man.
  
33:21 Not all the beliefs, churches,
 
33:22 and the idolatry of the
Christians or the Hindus.
  
33:29 That's not religion.
 
33:31 So we come back to the point:
 
33:35 if one sees all this
in this world,
  
33:38 observes it,
not condemn it or justify it,
  
33:42 just to observe it,
 
33:43 then, from that, one asks:
 
33:47 man has collected such
enormous information, knowledge,
  
33:53 and has that knowledge
changed him into goodness?
  
33:58 You follow, sir?
A: Oh yes, I follow.
  
34:00 K: Into a culture that
 
34:02 will make him flower
in this beauty of goodness.
  
34:08 It has not. A: No, it has not.
 
34:11 K: Therefore it has no meaning!
 
34:14 A: Excursions into defining
goodness
  
34:17 is not going to help us.
 
34:19 K: You can give
explanations, definitions,
  
34:22 but definitions are not
the reality.
  
34:26 A: No, of course not.
 
34:27 K: The word isn't the thing.
 
34:29 The description isn't the
described. A: Precisely.
  
34:34 K: So we come back again.
A: Yes, let's do.
  
34:39 K: Because, personally,
I am tremendously concerned
  
34:45 with this question:
how to change man.
  
34:51 Because I go to India
every year
  
34:56 for three months
or five months,
  
34:58 and I see
what is happening there,
  
35:00 and I see what is happening
in Europe,
  
35:02 I see what is happening
in this country, in America,
  
35:05 and it's something I can't
tell you what shock it gives me
  
35:11 each time
I come to these countries.
  
35:13 The degeneration,
the superficiality,
  
35:21 the intellectual concepts
galore,
  
35:27 without any substance,
without any basis
  
35:32 or ground, in which
the beauty of goodness,
  
35:36 of reality, can grow.
 
35:40 So saying all that,
 
35:45 what place has knowledge
in the regeneration of man?
  
35:50 That is the basic question.
 
35:54 A: That's our point of departure.
K: Departure.
  
35:56 A: Good.
 
35:57 And the knowledge
that we have pointed to so far,
  
36:00 that has emerged
in our discussion,
  
36:03 is a knowledge which in itself
 
36:06 has no power to effect
this transformation.
  
36:10 K: No, sir, but knowledge
has a place.
  
36:12 A: Yes, I didn't mean that.
 
36:14 I mean
what is expected of this
  
36:17 knowledge that we pointed to,
 
36:19 that is accumulated
in libraries,
  
36:21 is an expectation
which it in itself
  
36:24 cannot fulfil. K: No, no.
 
36:29 Now we must now go back
to the word again,
  
36:31 the word 'knowledge',
 
36:32 what does it mean 'to know'?
 
36:36 A: Well,
I have understood the word,
  
36:39 in a strict sense, this way:
 
36:42 knowledge is the
apprehension of 'what is'
  
36:45 but what passes for
knowledge might not be that.
  
36:48 K: No.
What is generally accepted
  
36:50 as knowledge is experience.
 
36:52 A: Yes,
what is generally accepted.
  
36:54 K: We will begin with that,
because that's what...
  
36:56 A: Yes, let's begin with
what's generally accepted.
  
36:58 K: The experience which yields
 
37:03 or leaves a mark
which is knowledge.
  
37:08 That accumulated knowledge,
 
37:10 whether in the scientific world,
 
37:12 or in the biological world,
or in the business world,
  
37:16 or in the world of the mind,
the being, is the known.
  
37:24 The known is the past,
therefore knowledge is the past.
  
37:31 Knowledge
cannot be in the present.
  
37:34 I can use knowledge
in the present.
  
37:39 A: But it's funded from the past.
K: Yes.
  
37:41 But it has its roots in the past.
 
37:46 Which means... That's
very interesting,
  
37:49 whether this knowledge
which we have acquired
  
37:54 about everything... A: Yes.
 
37:58 K: I personally don't
read any of these books,
  
38:02 neither the Gita, the
Bhagavad-Gita, or the Upanishads,
  
38:05 none of the psychological
books, nothing.
  
38:08 I am not a reader.
 
38:10 I have observed tremendously
all my life.
  
38:15 Now, knowledge has its place.
 
38:23 A: Oh yes, yes.
K: Let's be clear on this.
  
38:25 A: Oh yes, in the practical order.
 
38:27 K: In the practical, technological.
 
38:30 I must know where I am
going, physically, and so on.
  
38:34 Now, what place has that,
 
38:39 which is human experience as
well as scientific knowledge,
  
38:43 what place has that in
changing the quality of a mind
  
38:48 that has become brutal,
violent,
  
38:52 petty, selfish, greedy,
ambitious,
  
38:56 and all the rest of that?
 
38:58 What place
has knowledge in that?
  
39:01 A: We are going back to
the statement we began with,
  
39:03 namely that this transformation
 
39:06 is not dependent on knowledge,
 
39:09 then the answer would have to be:
it doesn't have a place.
  
39:12 K: Therefore let's find out
 
39:17 what are the limits of knowledge.
A: Yes, yes, of course.
  
39:21 K: Where is the demarcation?
 
39:26 Freedom from the known... A: Yes.
 
39:31 K: ...where does that freedom
begin?
  
39:35 A: Good.
 
39:36 Yes, now I know precisely
the point at which
  
39:42 we are going to move from.
 
39:43 Where does that freedom begin,
 
39:46 which is not dependent
 
39:47 on this funded accretion
from the past. K: That's right.
  
39:50 So the human mind is constructed
on knowledge. A: Yes.
  
40:01 K: It has evolved through
millennia on this accretion,
  
40:07 on tradition, on knowledge.
 
40:11 A: Yes.
K: It is there,
  
40:15 and all our actions are based
on that knowledge.
  
40:20 A: Which by definition
must be repetitious.
  
40:23 K: Obviously, and it is a repetition.
 
40:29 So, what is
the beginning of freedom
  
40:43 in relation to knowledge?
 
40:48 May I put it this way
 
40:50 to make myself clear? A: Yes, yes.
 
41:00 K: I have experienced
something yesterday
  
41:04 that has left a mark.
 
41:07 That is knowledge,
 
41:09 and with that knowledge
I meet the next experience.
  
41:15 So the next experience is
translated in terms of the old,
  
41:22 and therefore that experience
is never new.
  
41:27 A: So in a way, if I
understand you correctly,
  
41:29 you are saying that
 
41:31 the experience
that I had yesterday,
  
41:34 that I recall... K: The recollection.
 
41:37 A: ...the recollection upon
my meeting something new,
  
41:42 that appears to have
some relationship to it,
  
41:47 I approach on the
basis of holding my
  
41:50 previous knowledge up
as a mirror,
  
41:52 in which to determine
the nature of this new thing
  
41:57 that I have confronted.
K: Quite, quite.
  
41:59 A: And this could be
a rather crazy mirror.
  
42:02 K: Generally it is.
 
42:05 So, you see, that's what
I mean. A: Yes, I follow.
  
42:09 K: Where is freedom
 
42:14 in relation to knowledge?
 
42:18 Or is freedom
something other than
  
42:21 the continuity of knowledge?
A: Must be something other.
  
42:25 K: Which means, if one goes
into it very, very deeply,
  
42:30 it means
the ending of knowledge.
  
42:36 A: Yes.
 
42:39 K: And what does that mean?
 
42:44 What does it mean
to end knowledge,
  
42:48 whereas I have lived
entirely on knowledge.
  
42:53 A: It means that immediately.
K: Ah, wait, wait,
  
42:56 see what is involved in it,
sir.
  
43:02 I met you yesterday,
 
43:04 and there is the image
of you in my mind,
  
43:09 and that image
meets you next day.
  
43:14 A: Yes.
K: The image meets you.
  
43:16 A: The image meets me.
 
43:19 K: And there are a dozen images,
 
43:22 or hundred images.
So the image is the knowledge.
  
43:27 The image is the tradition.
 
43:31 The image is the past.
 
43:35 Now can there be
freedom from that?
  
43:41 A: If this transformation that
you speak of is to happen,
  
43:45 is to come to pass,
 
43:46 there must be.
K: Of course. Therefore
  
43:50 we can state it,
but how is the mind,
  
43:54 which strives, acts,
functions on image,
  
44:01 on knowledge, on the known,
 
44:06 how is it to end that?
 
44:14 Take this very simple fact:
you insult me, or praise me,
  
44:19 that remains a knowledge.
 
44:25 With that image, with
that knowledge I meet you.
  
44:30 I never meet you.
 
44:32 The image meets you.
 
44:34 A: Exactly.
 
44:36 K: Therefore there is no relationship
between you and me.
  
44:41 A: Yes, because between us
this has been interposed.
  
44:44 K: Of course, obviously.
 
44:45 Therefore,
how is that image to end,
  
44:49 never to register,
 
44:52 you follow, sir? A: I can't depend
 
44:53 on someone else
to handle it for me.
  
44:54 K: Therefore what am I to do?
 
44:56 How is this mind,
 
44:59 which is registering,
recording all the time
  
45:03 - the function of the brain
is to record, all the time -
  
45:07 how is it
to be free of knowledge?
  
45:14 When you have done
some harm to me,
  
45:17 personally, or collectively,
whatever it be,
  
45:20 you have insulted me,
you have flattered me,
  
45:23 how is the brain
not to register that?
  
45:27 If it registers, it is already
an image, it's a memory,
  
45:31 and the past then
meets the present.
  
45:35 And therefore
there is no solution to it.
  
45:38 A: Exactly.
 
45:40 K: I was looking at that word
the other day
  
45:42 in a very good dictionary:
 
45:44 tradition.
 
45:47 It means, and of course
the ordinary word 'tradere'
  
45:49 is to give, hand over,
to give across.
  
45:52 But it also has another
peculiar meaning - not peculiar -
  
45:57 from the same word
- betrayal.
  
46:00 A: Oh yes, traduce.
K: Traduce.
  
46:04 And in discussing in India
this came out:
  
46:08 betrayal of the present.
 
46:12 If I live in tradition,
I betray the present.
  
46:19 A: Yes, I do see that.
 
46:20 K: Which is knowledge
betrays the present.
  
46:25 A: Which is, in fact,
a self-betrayal.
  
46:27 K: Yes, that's right.
A: Yes, certainly.
  
46:29 K: How is the mind,
 
46:32 which functions on knowledge,
 
46:37 how is the brain, which is
recording all the time...
  
46:42 A: Yes. K: ...to end,
 
46:44 to see
the importance of recording
  
46:51 and not let it move
in any other direction?
  
46:57 That is, sir, let me to put
it this way, very simply:
  
47:00 you insult me, you hurt me
 
47:05 by word, gesture,
by an actual act,
  
47:10 that leaves
a mark on the brain,
  
47:15 which is memory. A: Yes.
 
47:18 K: That memory is knowledge,
 
47:22 that knowledge
is going to interfere
  
47:25 in my meeting you next time,
obviously.
  
47:29 Now how is the brain,
and also the mind,
  
47:34 how is the brain to record
 
47:38 and not let it interfere
with the present?
  
47:44 A: The person must, it seems
to me, take pains to negate.
  
47:47 K: No, no.
See what is implied,
  
47:49 how am I to negate it?
 
47:52 How is the brain,
whose function is to record,
  
47:57 like a computer, it is recording...
 
48:00 A: I didn't mean to suggest
that it negates the recording.
  
48:05 But it's the association,
the translation of the recording
  
48:09 into an emotional complex.
 
48:11 K: How is it
- that's just the point -
  
48:13 how is it to end
this emotional response
  
48:20 when I meet you next time,
you who have hurt me?
  
48:25 That's a problem. A: That's the place
 
48:28 from which we,
in the practical order,
  
48:30 in our relation to ourselves,
must then begin.
  
48:34 K: Yes.
A: Exactly.
  
48:38 There is an aspect of this
that interests me very much
  
48:44 in terms of
 
48:46 the relation between
the theoretical and the practical.
  
48:49 K: Sir, to me
theory has no reality.
  
48:59 Theories have no importance
 
49:02 to a man
who is actually living.
  
49:06 A: May I say
what I mean by theory?
  
49:11 I don't think I mean
what you think I mean by it.
  
49:16 I mean theory in the sense of
 
49:18 the Greek word 'theorea', spectacle,
 
49:21 what is out there that I see.
 
49:24 And the word is therefore
very closely related
  
49:26 to what you have been talking
about in terms of knowledge.
  
49:29 And yet it is the case
that if we see something,
  
49:33 that something is
registered to us in the mind
  
49:41 in terms of a likeness of it,
 
49:44 otherwise we should
have to become it
  
49:47 in order to receive it,
 
49:49 which in a material
order would annihilate us.
  
49:52 It seems to me, if I
followed you correctly,
  
49:55 that there is a profound
confusion in one's relationship
  
50:00 to that necessity
for the finite being
  
50:03 and what he makes of it.
 
50:06 And in so far he is making
the wrong thing of it,
  
50:10 he is in desperate trouble
 
50:12 and can only go on
repeating himself,
  
50:16 and in such a repetition
increasing despair.
  
50:21 Have I
distinguished this correctly?
  
50:24 K: You see,
 
50:31 religion is based
on tradition.
  
50:36 Religion is vast propaganda,
as it is now.
  
50:41 In India, here, anywhere,
propaganda
  
50:45 of theories, of beliefs,
of idolatry, worship,
  
50:52 essentially based on the
acceptance of a theory.
  
51:00 A: Yes, yes.
K: Essentially based on an idea.
  
51:07 A: A statement, a postulate.
K: Ideas, put out by thought.
  
51:12 A: Right.
 
51:15 K: And obviously,
that's not religion.
  
51:23 So religion, as it exists now,
 
51:29 is the very denial of truth.
 
51:35 A: Yes, yes. I am
sure I understand you.
  
51:41 K: And if a man like me or...
 
51:46 wants to find out,
discover what that truth is,
  
51:50 he must deny the whole
structure of religion as it is,
  
51:58 which is idolatry,
propaganda, fear,
  
52:04 division
- you are a Christian, I am a Hindu,
  
52:07 all that nonsense -
 
52:10 and be a light to oneself.
 
52:16 Not in the vain sense
of that word.
  
52:19 Light, because the world
is in darkness,
  
52:25 and a human being has
to transform himself,
  
52:30 has to be a light to himself.
 
52:33 And light is not lit
by somebody else.
  
52:38 A: So there is a point at which
 
52:41 he must stop repeating himself.
 
52:43 Is that correct?
K: Correct, sir.
  
52:45 A: In a sense,
 
52:48 we could use the analogy
perhaps from surgery:
  
52:51 something that
has been continuous
  
52:55 is now cut.
K: Yes.
  
52:57 A: And cut radically,
not just fooled around with.
  
53:04 K: We haven't time
to fool around any more,
  
53:07 the house is on fire.
 
53:10 At least I feel this
enormously,
  
53:13 things are coming to such a pass
we must do something,
  
53:17 each human being.
Not in terms of better housing,
  
53:21 better security,
more this and that,
  
53:23 but basically
to regenerate himself.
  
53:30 A: But if the person believes
 
53:35 that in cutting himself
from this accretion
  
53:41 that he is killing himself,
 
53:44 then he is going to
resist that idea.
  
53:46 K: Of course, of course.
Therefore he has to understand
  
53:52 what his mind has created,
 
53:56 therefore he has to
understand himself.
  
53:59 A: So he starts observing
himself.
  
54:01 K: Himself, which is the world.
 
54:04 A: Yes. Not learning five
languages to be able to...
  
54:07 K: Oh, for God's sake, no, no.
 
54:10 Or going to schools where
you learn sensitivity
  
54:13 and all that rubbish.
 
54:16 A: The point that you are making,
it seems to me,
  
54:20 is made also by the great
Danish thinker, Kirkegaard,
  
54:25 who lived a very trying life
in his own community,
  
54:31 because he was asking them,
it seems to me,
  
54:33 to undertake
what you are saying.
  
54:36 He was saying, 'Look,
if I go to seminary
  
54:39 and I try to understand
what Christianity is
  
54:42 by studying it myself,
 
54:44 then what I am doing is
appropriating something here,
  
54:48 but then when do I know
when I have appropriated it fully.
  
54:52 I shall never know that point,
 
54:54 therefore I shall
forever appropriate it
  
54:56 and never do anything
about it as such
  
55:00 as a subject.
 
55:02 The person
who must risk the deed,
  
55:05 not the utterance
 
55:07 - what someone
has said before -
  
55:08 or not simply thinking through
 
55:10 what someone
has thought before,
  
55:12 but actually embodying
 
55:15 the meaning through
the observation of myself
  
55:19 in relation to that. K: Quite, quite.
 
55:20 A: And that has always seemed
to me a very profound insight.
  
55:25 But one of the ironies
of that is, of course,
  
55:28 in the Academy we have an
endless proliferation of studies,
  
55:34 in which scholars
have learned Danish
  
55:36 in order to understand
Kirkegaard. K: Oh no.
  
55:40 A: And what they are doing
is to a large extent,
  
55:43 if I haven't misjudged the
spirit of much that I have read,
  
55:48 is simply perpetuate the very thing
he said should be cut.
  
55:56 I do have this very
strong feeling that
  
56:00 profound change would
take place in the Academy,
  
56:03 of which
you know I am a member,
  
56:05 if the teacher were not only
 
56:14 to grasp this
that you have said,
  
56:17 but take the risk
of acting on it.
  
56:21 Since if it isn't acted on,
 
56:22 if I've understood you correctly,
 
56:24 we are back again
where we were.
  
56:27 We have toyed with the idea
 
56:29 of being
valiant and courageous,
  
56:31 but then we have
to think about
  
56:33 of what is involved
before we do,
  
56:34 and then we don't do.
K: Quite.
  
56:36 A: We think and don't do.
K: Therefore, sir,
  
56:38 the word is not the thing.
 
56:40 The description is
not the described,
  
56:43 and if you are not concerned
with the description,
  
56:46 but only with the thing, 'what is',
 
56:50 then we have to do something.
 
56:52 When you are confronted
with 'what is' you act,
  
56:56 but when you are
concerned with theories
  
56:58 and speculations and beliefs,
 
56:59 you never act.
 
57:01 A: So there isn't any hope
for this transformation,
  
57:03 if I have understood
you correctly, if
  
57:06 I should think to myself that
this just sounds marvellous:
  
57:10 I am the world
and the world is me,
  
57:12 while I go on thinking
 
57:14 that the description
is the described.
  
57:17 There is no hope.
 
57:18 So we are speaking
about a disease over here,
  
57:21 and we are speaking
about something
  
57:22 that has been stated
as the case,
  
57:26 and if I take what has
been stated as the case
  
57:29 as 'the case',
 
57:31 then I am thinking that the
description is the described.
  
57:34 K: Of course.
A: And I never get out.
  
57:36 K: Sir, it is like
a man who is hungry.
  
57:40 Any amount of description
of the right kind of food
  
57:44 will never satisfy him.
He is hungry, he wants food.
  
57:50 So all this implies,
doesn't it, sir,
  
57:56 several things.
 
57:58 First, can there be
freedom from knowledge
  
58:02 - and knowledge has its place -
 
58:07 can there be freedom
 
58:12 from the tradition as knowledge.
 
58:16 A: From the tradition
as knowledge, yes.
  
58:19 K: Can there be freedom from
 
58:22 this separative outlook:
me and you,
  
58:27 we and they, Christian,
and all this divisive
  
58:33 attitude or activity in life.
 
58:36 Those are the problems
we have to...
  
58:39 A: That's what we must attend to
 
58:42 as we move through our dialogues.
 
58:44 K: So, first, can the mind
be free from the known,
  
58:52 and not verbally, but actually?
A: But actually.
  
58:57 K: I can speculate about
 
58:58 what is freedom,
and all the rest of it,
  
59:00 but see the necessity,
the importance
  
59:05 that there must be
freedom from the known,
  
59:08 otherwise
life becomes repetitive,
  
59:10 a continuous
superficial scratching.
  
59:15 It has no meaning.
A: Of course.
  
59:18 In our next conversation together
 
59:21 I hope we can begin
where we have just left off.