Krishnamurti Subtitles

Knowledge and conflict in human Relationships

San Diego - 18 February 1974

Conversation with A.W. Anderson 2

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.
0:46 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, among them
1:10 The Awakening of Intelligence,
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 between
1:21 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,
1:35 received his degree
from Columbia University
1:38 and the Union Theological Seminary.
1:41 He has been honoured with
the distinguished Teaching Award
1:43 from the California
State University.
1:48 A: Mr. Krishnamurti, in
our previous conversation,
1:51 I was extremely delighted,
for myself at least,
1:57 that we had made the distinction
2:01 in terms of relation
between knowledge
2:04 and self-transformation,
2:06 between, on the one hand,
2:10 the relationship
that I sustain with the world,
2:13 - as the world is me
and I am the world -
2:17 and on the other hand,
this dysfunctional condition,
2:21 which indicates
- in your phrase -
2:25 that a person
is involved in thinking
2:30 that the description
is the described.
2:34 It would appear then
that something must be done
2:40 to bring about a change
in the individual,
2:44 and, going back to our use
of the word 'individual',
2:48 we could say - and you
used the word earlier -
2:51 that we are dealing
with an observer.
2:54 So if the individual
is not to make the mistake
2:58 of taking the description
for the described,
3:03 then he must, as an observer,
3:06 relate to the observed
in a particular way
3:10 that is totally different
3:13 from the way he has
been in his confusion.
3:16 I thought that, perhaps,
in this particular conversation,
3:19 if we pursued that
it would be a link directly
3:23 with what we had said prior.
3:25 K: What we said previously,
3:28 wasn't it that there must be
a quality of freedom
3:37 from the known,
3:40 otherwise the known is merely
repetitive of the past,
3:45 the tradition, the image,
and so on.
3:51 The past, surely, sir,
is the observer.
3:59 The past is
the accumulated knowledge
4:03 as the 'me' and the 'we',
they' and 'us'.
4:09 The observer is put together
by thought as the past.
4:19 Thought is the past.
4:23 Thought is never free.
4:27 Thought is never new,
4:28 because thought is
the response of the past
4:32 as knowledge,
as experience, as memory.
4:38 A: Yes, I follow that.
4:40 K: And the observer,
when he observes,
4:44 is observing
with the memories, experiences,
4:50 knowledge, hurts, despairs, hope
- all that,
4:54 with all that background
he looks at the observed.
5:02 So the observer then becomes
separate from the observed.
5:10 Is the observer different
from the observed?
5:14 Which we will go into
presently later on.
5:16 That leads to all kinds
of other things.
5:20 So, when we are talking
of freedom from the known,
5:26 we are talking about
the freedom from the observer.
5:33 A: The observer, yes.
5:36 K: And the observer
is the tradition, the past,
5:43 the conditioned mind
that looks at things,
5:51 looks at itself,
looks at the world,
5:53 looks at me, and so on.
5:56 So the observer
is always dividing.
6:00 The observer is the past
6:03 and therefore
it cannot observe wholly.
6:10 A: If the person uses
the first person pronoun 'I'
6:19 while he is taking the description
for the described,
6:22 this is the observer he refers to
when he says, 'I'.
6:27 K: 'I' is the past.
A: I see.
6:32 K: 'I' is the whole structure
of what has been:
6:38 the remembrances,
the memories,
6:39 the hurts, the various demands
6:44 - all that is put together
in the word 'the I'
6:50 who is the observer,
6:54 and therefore division:
6:58 the observer and the observed.
7:01 The observer
who thinks he is a Christian
7:03 and observes a non-Christian,
or a Communist,
7:07 this division,
this attitude of mind which observes
7:17 with conditioned responses,
7:22 with memories, and so on.
So that is the known.
7:29 A: I see.
7:30 K: I mean,
I think that is logically so.
7:33 A: Oh no, it follows precisely
from what you have said.
7:37 K: So, we are asking, can the
mind, or the whole structure,
7:43 can the mind
be free from the known?
7:49 Otherwise the repetitious action,
repetitious attitudes,
7:57 repetitious ideologies
will go on,
8:01 modified, changed, but it will be
the same direction.
8:08 A: Do go ahead, I was going
to say something, but I think
8:10 I'll let it wait
until you have finished
8:12 what you have said.
8:13 K: So, what is this
freedom from the known?
8:18 I think that is very important
to understand because
8:23 any creative action...
8:26 I am using the word 'creative'
in its original sense,
8:29 not in the sense creative
writing, creative...
8:33 A: I know.
8:34 K: ...bakery, creative essay,
creative pictures.
8:38 I am not talking in that sense.
8:40 In the deeper sense
of that word
8:43 creative means something
totally new being born.
8:52 Otherwise it is not creative,
it is merely repetitive,
8:54 modified, changed, or the past.
8:58 So unless there is
a freedom from the known,
9:03 there is no creative action
at all.
9:09 Which is, freedom implies,
not the negation of the known,
9:19 but the understanding
of the known,
9:22 and that understanding
brings about an intelligence,
9:26 which is the very
essence of freedom.
9:31 A: I'd like to make sure
that I've understood
9:34 your use of this word 'creative'.
9:37 It seems to me very,
very important.
9:42 People
who use the word 'creative'
9:44 in the sense that you described:
9:46 creative this, that, or the other...
K: That's a horror.
9:48 That is a dreadful way
of using that word.
9:51 A: ...because what the
issue is of their activity
9:56 is something merely novel.
K: Novel, novel, that's right.
9:59 A: Not radically new,
but novel.
10:03 K: It's like creative writing,
teaching creative writing.
10:06 It's so absurd!
A: Exactly.
10:09 Yes, now I do, I think,
grasp precisely
10:13 the distinction you have made.
10:15 And I must say
I fully agree with that.
10:20 K: Unless you feel new
you cannot create anything new.
10:26 A: That's right. And the
person, who imagines that he is
10:32 creative in this other sense
that we pointed to,
10:38 is a person
whose reference for his activity
10:42 is this observer
that we mentioned,
10:45 that is tied to the past.
10:47 K: Yes, that's right.
A: So even if something does appear
10:50 that is really extraordinarily novel,
merely novel,
10:56 but still extraordinarily novel,
10:58 they are kidding themselves.
10:59 K: The novel is not the creative.
A: Exactly.
11:01 K: The novel is just the...
11:04 A: And today especially,
it seems to me, in our culture,
11:07 we've become hysterical
about this,
11:09 because
in order to be creative
11:11 one simply
must wrack his brains
11:14 in order to produce something
11:16 which in itself is bizarre enough
to get attention.
11:20 K: That's all. Attention, success.
11:24 A: Yes. It has to be novel
to the degree
11:28 that I feel knocked
on the head by it.
11:31 K: Eccentric, and all the rest.
A: Exactly.
11:34 But if that tension
is increased,
11:37 then,
with each succeeding generation,
11:39 the person is put
to tremendous stress
11:42 not to repeat the past,
which he can't help repeating.
11:45 K: Repeating, quite.
11:47 That's why I say
freedom is one thing
11:51 and knowledge is another.
We must relate the two
11:56 and see whether the mind
can be free from knowledge.
12:02 We won't go into it now.
This is real meditation for me.
12:07 You follow, sir?
A: Yes, I do.
12:09 K: Because... when we'll talk
about meditation,
12:13 we will go into it.
12:17 You see,
whether the brain can record
12:22 and be free not to record,
12:28 to record and operate
when necessary,
12:34 in the recording, in
the memory, in knowledge,
12:37 and be free to observe
without the observer.
12:43 A: Oh yes, yes, I see.
12:45 That distinction seems to me
absolutely necessary,
12:50 otherwise
it wouldn't be intelligible.
12:53 K: So knowledge is necessary
to act in the sense
13:04 my going home from here
to the place I live.
13:08 I must have knowledge.
13:10 I must have knowledge
to speak English.
13:14 I must have knowledge
to write a letter,
13:16 and so on, everything.
13:19 The knowledge as function,
13:22 mechanical function,
is necessary.
13:27 Now if I use that knowledge
in my relationship with you,
13:32 another human being,
13:34 I am bringing about
a barrier, a division
13:38 between you and me,
who is the observer.
13:43 Am I making myself clear?
13:46 A: I am the observed in that case.
Right in that context.
13:50 K: That is, knowledge
in a relationship,
13:54 in human relationship,
is destructive.
14:00 That is, knowledge, which is
14:03 the tradition, the memory,
the image,
14:07 which the mind
has built about you,
14:13 when we are related together,
that knowledge is separative
14:19 and therefore creates
conflict in that relationship.
14:26 As we said earlier,
where there is division
14:29 there must be conflict.
14:31 Division between
India and Pakistan,
14:34 India and America,
Russia, and all that,
14:37 this divisive activity,
14:41 politically, religiously,
economically, socially,
14:44 in every way,
must inevitably bring conflict
14:48 and therefore violence.
14:52 That's obvious.
A: Exactly.
14:55 K: Now, when in relationship,
in human relationship,
15:01 knowledge comes between,
15:06 then in that relationship
there must be conflict,
15:10 between husband and wife,
boy and girl,
15:13 wherever there is
the operation as the observer,
15:18 who is the past,
who is knowledge,
15:21 in that activity
there is division
15:25 and therefore conflict
in relationship.
15:29 A: So now the question
that comes up next
15:33 is the one of freedom
15:36 from being subject
to this repetitive round.
15:41 K: That's right.
A: Good, good.
15:43 K: Now is that possible?
You follow, sir?
15:46 It is an immense question
15:51 human beings live in relationship.
A: Yes.
15:57 K: There is no life
without relationship.
16:02 Life means to be related.
16:07 A: Exactly.
16:09 K: People who retire into
a monastery, and all that,
16:11 they are still related,
16:13 however they might like
to think they are alone,
16:16 they are actually related,
related to the past.
16:21 A: Oh yes, very much so.
16:23 K: To their saviour, to their Christ,
to their Buddha,
16:27 - you follow? - all that,
they are related to the past.
16:30 A: And their rules.
K: And their rules, everything.
16:32 A: Yes.
K: They live in the past
16:35 and therefore they are
the most destructive people,
16:41 because
they are not creative
16:42 in the deeper sense
of that word.
16:46 A: No, and they also,
in so far as
16:50 they are involved
in this confusion
16:51 that you have been
talking about,
16:56 are not even producing
anything novel.
16:59 Not that that means anything,
17:01 but perhaps that would
rather radically...
17:04 K: The novel would be,
for a man who is talkative,
17:07 to enter a monastery
where they don't talk.
17:10 That's a novel to him
and he says that's a miracle!
17:13 A: Right.
17:15 K: So our problem then is:
17:19 what place has knowledge
in human relationship?
17:25 A: Yes, that's the problem.
K: That's one problem.
17:30 Because relationship
with human beings
17:35 is the highest importance,
17:37 because
out of that relationship
17:39 we create the society
in which we live.
17:44 Out of that relationship
all our existence comes.
17:50 A: This would take us back
again to the earlier statement:
17:55 I am the world
and the world is me.
17:57 That is a statement
about relationship.
18:01 It's a statement about
many other things too,
18:04 but that is a statement
about relationship.
18:07 The statement 'the description
is not the described'
18:11 is the statement of the
rupture of the relationship...
18:15 K: That's right.
A: terms of everyday activity.
18:19 K: Sir, everyday activity
is my life, is our life.
18:23 A: Is everything. Yes, precisely.
18:25 K: Whether I go to the office,
the factory,
18:27 or drive a bus, or whatever it is,
it is life, living.
18:32 A: But it is interesting,
isn't it, that even when
18:36 that rupture is undergone
18:41 at a very destructive level,
18:46 what we call thought
18:47 - in the context of
our description of it
18:49 and image -
becomes itself even distorted.
18:53 K: Of course, of course.
A: So that the distortion,
18:56 that we've been calling
18:58 in terms of its application,
19:01 - not 'I need to know
19:02 how to get from here to there',
of course -
19:06 can itself suffer
an even worse condition
19:11 than we are presently related to,
and we have
19:14 tomes upon tomes about that
pathology in itself, don't we?
19:18 Please, please, do go on.
19:22 K: So knowledge and freedom:
19:25 they must both exist together,
19:30 not freedom 'and' knowledge.
19:32 It's the harmony between the two.
19:37 The two operating
all the time in relationship.
19:44 A: The knowledge
and freedom in harmony.
19:48 K: In harmony. It's like
they can never be divorced.
19:55 If I want to live with you
in great harmony,
19:58 which is love,
20:01 - which we will discuss
later on -
20:06 there must be this absolute
sense of freedom from you,
20:13 not dependency,
and so on, so on, so on,
20:15 this absolute sense of freedom
20:19 operating at the same time
in the field of knowledge.
20:24 A: Exactly.
20:26 So somehow this knowledge,
20:33 if I may use a theological
word here without
20:38 prejudicing
what we are talking about,
20:41 if in correct relationship
with this freedom,
20:44 is somehow continuously
20:48 it is somehow operating
no longer destructively,
20:52 but in coordination with the
freedom, in which I may live,
21:00 because we haven't got
to that freedom yet,
21:02 we are just positing freedom.
21:05 K: We have somewhat analysed,
or discussed, or opened,
21:11 the question of knowledge.
A: Yes.
21:13 K: And we haven't gone into
the question of freedom,
21:15 what it means.
21:18 A: No, but we have established
something, I think,
21:19 that this conversation
so far has revealed,
21:26 which is terribly important,
21:29 at least I'd say for my students
21:31 in terms of helping them
21:36 not to misunderstand
what you are saying.
21:38 K: Quite.
A: I have the feeling that
21:40 many persons,
because they are not
21:43 sufficiently attentive
to what you say,
21:46 simply dismiss many statements
you say out of hand as...
21:51 K: ...impossible.
A: either impossible, or
21:55 if they like
the aesthetics of it,
21:58 it still doesn't apply to them.
22:00 It's a lovely thing out there:
22:02 'Wouldn't it be great
if somehow we could do this?'
22:05 But, you see,
you haven't said that.
22:06 You haven't said what they
think you have said. You've said
22:10 something about knowledge
with respect to pathology,
22:14 and you've said
something about knowledge,
22:16 in which knowledge itself
is no longer destructive. K: No.
22:21 A: So we're not saying
that knowledge as such
22:26 is the bad guy and
something else is the good guy.
22:29 No, no. I think it is terribly
important that that's seen,
22:32 and I wouldn't mind it being
repeated over and over again,
22:37 because I do heartily feel
that it's easy to misunderstand.
22:44 K: That's very important,
because religion,
22:49 at least the meaning
of that word is to
22:52 gather together,
to be attentive.
22:57 That is the true meaning
of that word 'religion'.
23:01 I have looked it up in a dictionary.
A: Oh yes, I agree.
23:04 K: Gathering together
all energy to be attentive.
23:09 To be attentive,
otherwise it's not religion.
23:14 Religion is all the things...
23:17 we'll discuss that
when we come to it.
23:18 So freedom means
the sense of complete austerity
23:29 and a sense of total negation
of the observer.
23:36 A: Exactly.
23:40 K: Out of that comes austerity,
everything else
23:44 - we'll go into that later on.
23:45 A: But austerity in itself
doesn't produce it.
23:48 K: No. Upside down.
A: So we've turned that upside down.
23:51 K: Austere means, really,
the word itself means
23:55 ash, dry, brittle.
24:03 But the austerity
24:04 of which we are talking about
is something
24:05 entirely different.
A: Yes.
24:08 K: It is the freedom
24:10 that brings about
this austerity, inwardly.
24:13 A: There is a beautiful biblical
phrase that points to this,
24:18 just three words,
'beauty for ashes',
24:21 when the transformation
takes place.
24:24 And in English we have
the phrase 'ashes in the mouth'
24:28 when the whole thing
has come to ashes.
24:32 But there is a change
from ashes to beauty.
24:35 K: So freedom in action
in the field of knowledge
24:48 and in the field of
human relationship,
24:52 because that is
the highest importance:
24:54 human relationship.
24:56 A: Oh yes, yes.
24:58 Oh yes, particularly if I am
the world and the world is me.
25:02 K: Obviously.
A: Yes.
25:04 K: So what place has knowledge
in human relationship?
25:14 Knowledge in the sense
of past experience,
25:17 tradition, image.
25:21 A: Yes.
25:22 K: What place has the observer,
25:24 - all that is the observer -
25:27 what place has the observer
in human relationship?
25:34 A: What place has knowledge
on the one hand,
25:36 what place has the observer.
25:38 K: Observer is the knowledge.
A: Is the knowledge.
25:41 But there is the possibility
of seeing knowledge
25:46 not simply negatively,
but in co-ordination
25:51 in true creative relationship.
25:54 K: I have said that.
A: Exactly.
25:57 K: I am related to you, let's say,
to make it very simple.
26:02 I'm related to you,
you are my brother,
26:06 husband, wife, whatever it is,
26:09 and what place has knowledge
as the observer,
26:16 which is the past,
and knowledge is the past,
26:22 what place has that
in our relationship?
26:28 A: If our relationship is creative...
26:33 K: It is not.
26:34 Not 'if,' we must take it
actually as it is.
26:41 I am related to you,
I am married to you,
26:44 I am your wife or husband,
whatever it is.
26:47 Now, what is the actuality
in that relationship?
26:52 The actuality,
not theoretical actuality,
26:55 but the actuality is that
I am separate from you.
27:00 A: The actuality must be
that we are not divided.
27:03 K: But we are.
27:06 I may call you my husband,
my wife, but I am
27:11 concerned with my success,
I am concerned with my money,
27:16 I am concerned with my ambitions,
my envy, I am full of me.
27:23 A: Yes, I see that, but
I want to make sure now that
27:29 we haven't reached
a confusion here.
27:31 K: Yes, we have.
A: When I say
27:33 that the actuality is
that we are not separate,
27:38 I do not mean to say
that, at the phenomenal level,
27:43 that a dysfunction is occurring.
I am fully aware of that.
27:46 But if we are going to say that
27:47 the world is me and
I am the world...
27:49 K: We say it theoretically,
we don't feel it.
27:52 A: Precisely.
But if that is the case,
27:56 that the world is me
and I am the world,
28:01 and this is actual,
this is actual...
28:04 K: This is actual only
when I have no division in myself.
28:08 A: Exactly. Exactly.
K: But I have a division.
28:12 A: If I have a division,
then there is no relationship
28:15 between one and the other.
K: Therefore
28:19 one accepts the idea
28:23 that the world is me
and me is the world.
28:29 That is just an idea. Look, sir.
28:32 A: Yes, I understand.
But if and when it happens...
28:35 K: Wait. Just see what
takes place in my mind.
28:39 I make
a statement of that kind:
28:41 'the world is you
and you are the world'.
28:44 The mind then translates it
into an idea, into a concept,
28:53 and tries to live
according to that concept.
28:56 A: Exactly.
28:57 K: It has abstracted from reality.
29:04 A: This is knowledge
in the destructive sense.
29:09 K: I won't call it
destructive or positive.
29:11 This is what is going on.
29:13 A: Well, let's say
the issue from it is hell.
29:17 K: Yes. So, in my relationship
with you
29:25 what place has knowledge,
the past, the image,
29:30 - which is the observer,
all that is the observer -
29:34 what place has the observer
in our relationship?
29:38 Actually the observer
is the factor of division.
29:44 A: Right.
29:46 K: And therefore the conflict
between you and me,
29:49 this is what is going on
in the world everyday.
29:53 A: Then one would have to say,
it seems to me,
29:56 following the conversation
point by point,
30:01 that the place
of this observer,
30:04 - understood
as you have pointed it out -
30:08 is the point of dysrelationship.
30:13 K: Is the point
where there is really actually
30:17 no relationship at all.
30:19 I may sleep with my wife,
and so on, so on,
30:23 but actually
there is no relationship,
30:29 because I have my own pursuits,
my own ambitions,
30:34 all the idiosyncrasies,
and so on, and she has hers,
30:39 so we are always separate
30:44 and therefore always in battle
with each other.
30:51 Which means the observer,
as the past,
30:55 is the factor of division.
30:58 A: Yes, I was just
wanting to be sure that
31:01 the phrase is the place...
31:04 of 'what is the
place of the observer'
31:06 was understood in the
context of what we are saying.
31:09 We have made the statement
that there is such a thing.
31:12 K: Yes.
31:13 A: Well, its place as such
would seem to me not to be
31:19 what we usually mean by
its occupying a place.
31:22 K: Yes.
A: We are talking rather about
31:25 an activity here
that is profoundly disordered.
31:30 K: Sir, as long as
there is the observer,
31:35 there must be conflict
in relationship.
31:39 A: Yes, I follow that.
K: Wait, wait, see what happens.
31:43 I make a statement
of that kind,
31:45 someone will translate it
into an idea,
31:48 into a concept and say,
'How am I to live that concept?'
31:55 The fact is he doesn't observe
himself as the observer.
32:03 A: That's right.
32:04 That's right. He is the
observer looking out there,
32:07 making a distinction
between himself...
32:09 K: ...and the statement.
A: Right. Making a division.
32:13 K: Division.
32:16 Has the observer
any place at all in relationship?
32:22 I say no, the moment
32:25 he comes into existence
in relationship,
32:30 there is no relationship.
32:35 A: The relationship is not.
K: Is not.
32:38 A: It is not something
that is in dysrelationship.
32:42 K: Yes, that's right.
A: We are talking about something,
32:45 that in fact doesn't even exist.
K: Exist.
32:48 Therefore we have to go into
the question why human beings
32:54 in their relationship
32:56 with other human beings
are so violent,
33:00 because that is spreading
throughout the world.
33:05 I was told the other day in India,
a mother came to see me,
33:11 very Brahmanical family,
33:14 very cultured,
and all the rest of it.
33:17 Her son, who is six,
33:21 when she asked him
to do something
33:23 he took up a stick
and began to hit her.
33:26 A thing unknown.
You follow, sir?
33:31 The idea
that you should hit your mother
33:35 is traditionally
something incredible!
33:39 And this boy did it.
33:43 And I said,
'See what is the fact',
33:46 we went into it, she understood.
33:49 So, to understand violence,
one has to understand division.
33:56 A: The division was already there.
K: There.
33:59 A: Otherwise he would not
have picked up the stick.
34:02 K: Division between nations,
you follow, sir?
34:06 This race for armaments
34:10 is one of
the factors of violence.
34:13 Which is,
I am calling myself American
34:16 and he is calling himself Russian,
or Hindu,
34:19 or whatever it is.
34:20 This division is the factor
of real violence and hatred.
34:27 When a mind sees that,
34:31 it cuts away
all division in himself.
34:35 He is no longer a
Hindu, American, Russian.
34:37 He is a human being
34:41 with his problems which
he is then trying to solve,
34:45 not in terms of India,
or America, or Russia.
34:52 So we come to the point:
34:55 can the mind be free
in relationship,
35:04 which means orderly,
not chaotic, orderly.
35:12 A: It has to be,
otherwise you couldn't use
35:13 the word 'relationship'.
K: No. No.
35:16 So can the mind be free of that?
35:20 Free of the observer?
35:25 A: If not, there is no hope.
K: That's the whole point.
35:29 A: If not, we've had it.
K: Yes.
35:31 And all the escapes, and
going off into other religions,
35:35 doing all kinds of tricks,
has no meaning.
35:39 Now, this demands
a great deal of perception, insight,
35:46 into the fact of your life:
how one lives one's life.
35:54 After all, philosophy
means the love of truth,
35:58 love of wisdom, not the
love of some abstraction.
36:03 A: Oh no, no, no.
36:05 Wisdom is supremely practical.
36:07 K: Practical. Therefore here it is.
36:11 That is, can a human being
live in relationship in freedom
36:19 and yet operate
in the field of knowledge?
36:24 A: And yet operate in the
field of knowledge, yes.
36:26 K: And be absolutely orderly.
36:34 Otherwise it is not freedom.
36:36 Because order means virtue.
36:40 A: Yes, yes.
36:42 K: Which doesn't exist in the world
at the present time.
36:45 There is no sense of virtue
in anything.
36:49 Then we repeat.
36:52 Virtue is a creative thing,
36:54 is a living thing,
is a moving thing.
36:57 A: I am thinking, as you are
saying this about virtue,
37:04 which is really power,
37:08 which is really
the ability to act,
37:12 and if I am following you
37:17 what you are really saying,
37:20 - and please correct me
if I am way off here -
37:23 what you are really saying
is that
37:28 the ability to act
in the strict sense
37:35 which must be creative,
37:38 otherwise it's not an action,
but it is simply a reaction.
37:43 K: A repetition.
A: A repetition.
37:49 That the ability to act,
or virtue, as you put it,
37:53 bears with it necessarily
the implication of order.
38:01 It must. It seems to
me no way out of that.
38:05 Yes, I just wanted to recover that
a step at a time.
38:10 K: So can I come back?
38:15 In human relationship,
as it exists now,
38:20 - we are looking
at that what actually is -
38:24 in that human relationship
there is conflict,
38:29 sexual violence,
and so on, so on, so on,
38:33 every kind of violence.
38:36 Now, can man
live at total peace,
38:43 otherwise he is not creative,
38:47 in human relationship,
38:49 because that is
the basis of all life.
38:55 A: I'm very taken with the way
you have pursued this.
39:01 I noticed that, when
we asked this question
39:05 'is it possible that..'.
39:09 the reference for it
is always a totality.
39:13 And the reference over here
is a fragment,
39:17 or a fragmentation, or a division.
39:22 Never once have you said
39:25 that the passage
from one to the other
39:28 is a movement
that even exists, you see.
39:32 K: No. It can't exist.
39:33 Quite, quite. Absolutely.
39:35 A: I think, Mr. Krishnamurti,
39:37 that nothing is
so difficult to grasp
39:42 as this statement
that you have made.
39:48 There is nothing that we are taught,
from childhood up,
39:54 to render such a possibility.
40:03 A matter for taking seriously,
40:07 because when...
- one doesn't like to make
40:11 sweeping statements about the way
40:13 everybody has been educated -
40:14 but I'm thinking of myself,
from a child upward,
40:22 all the way through
graduate school,
40:27 accumulating
a lot of this knowledge
40:28 that you have been
talking about.
40:33 I don't remember
anybody saying to me,
40:39 or even pointing me
to a literature that
40:44 so categorically
makes this distinction
40:47 between one and the other as...
40:54 - in terms of each other -
40:57 not accessible to each
other through passage.
41:00 K: No. No, no, quite, quite.
41:02 A: Now, I'm correct in
understanding you there, aren't I?
41:05 K: Quite right.
41:08 A: Maybe I could just
say this as an aside.
41:10 K: The fragment can't
become the whole.
41:13 A: No. The fragment
cannot become the whole,
41:15 in and of itself.
41:16 K: But the fragment is always
trying to become the whole.
41:19 A: Exactly. Exactly.
41:23 Now, of course, in the years
of very serious and devoted
41:31 contemplation and exploration
of this,
41:34 - which quite clearly you have
undertaken with great passion -
41:42 I suppose it must
have occurred to you
41:44 that the first sight of this,
41:47 while one is in the condition
of the observer,
41:52 must be very frightening
- in the condition of the observer,
41:56 the thought that
there is no passage.
41:59 K: No. But you see,
I never looked at it that way.
42:04 A: Please tell me how
you looked at it. Please.
42:11 K: From childhood I never
thought I was a Hindu.
42:17 A: I see.
42:18 K: I never thought
when I was educated in England
42:21 and all the rest of it,
that I was European.
42:24 I never was caught
in that trap.
42:29 I don't know how it happened,
42:30 I was never caught in that trap.
42:33 A: Well, when you were quite little
42:35 and your playmates said to you,
42:38 well now, look,
you are a Hindu,
42:40 what did you say?
K: I probably put on Hinduism
42:43 and all the trappings
of Brahmin tradition,
42:48 but it never penetrated deeply.
42:51 A: As we say in the vernacular,
it never got to you.
42:54 K: It never got to me, that's right.
A: I see.
42:57 That's very remarkable.
That's extraordinary.
43:02 The vast number of people
in the world seem
43:05 to have been got to
in respect to this.
43:08 K: That's why, I think,
you see,
43:16 propaganda has become
the means of change.
43:27 A: Yes. Yes.
43:29 K: Propaganda is not truth.
43:33 Repetition is not truth.
43:36 A: It's a form of violence too.
K: That's just it.
43:41 So a mind
that merely observes
43:46 doesn't react
to what it observes
43:50 according
to its conditioning,
43:52 which means there is
no observer at any time,
43:57 therefore no division.
43:59 It happened to me,
44:02 I don't know how it
happened, but it has happened.
44:06 And, in observing all this,
44:11 I've seen
every human relationship,
44:14 every kind of
human relationship,
44:16 there is this division
and therefore violence.
44:20 And to me the very
essence of non-relationship
44:25 is the factor of me and you.
44:31 A: I was just trying to go
back in my own personal history
44:35 and think of when I was a child.
44:39 I did, while accepting
that I was different,
44:45 I did believe that,
I did come to accept that,
44:49 there was something else,
however, that always held me
44:53 very, very hard to centre
44:58 in terms of making
an ultimate issue of that,
45:03 and that was an experience
I had when I was rowing a boat.
45:07 I spent some time in
Scandinavia as a child,
45:12 and I used to take a boat
out on the fjord every day,
45:17 and when I would row,
45:20 I was profoundly moved by
the action of the water,
45:27 when I moved the oar,
45:30 because I lifted the oar
out of the water
45:34 and there was separation
in substance
45:37 between the water and the oar,
45:38 but the water, which
was necessary for support
45:43 and for purchase, so that
I could propel myself,
45:50 never lost touch with itself,
it always turned into itself
45:57 without ever having left
itself in the beginning.
46:00 And once in a while I would
laugh at myself and say,
46:03 if anyone catches you
looking at this water
46:05 any longer than you are doing,
46:07 they will think that you
are clear out of your mind.
46:09 This is the observer talking
to himself, of course.
46:12 But that made such a
profound impression on me
46:14 that I think...
46:17 I think it was
what you might call
46:19 a little salvation for me,
and I never lost that.
46:22 So maybe there is some
relationship between
46:25 that apprehension,
46:28 which I think changed my being,
46:31 and what it is
you are talking about as one
46:33 who never ever suffered
this sense of separation at all.
46:38 Yes. Please go ahead.
46:43 K: So this brings us to the point,
sir, doesn't it,
46:49 can the human mind,
which has evolved in separation,
46:58 in fragmentation...
47:03 A: This is where evolution is. Yes.
47:05 K: ...can such a mind transform,
undergo a regeneration,
47:15 which is not produced
by influence,
47:20 by propaganda,
47:23 by threat and punishment,
47:28 because if it changes because
it is going to get a reward...
47:33 A: It hasn't changed.
K: hasn't changed.
47:36 So that is one of
the fundamental things
47:41 which one has to ask and
answer it in action, not in words.
47:47 A: In action. Oh yes.
K: Which is:
47:55 my mind, the human mind,
47:58 has evolved in contradiction,
in duality
48:04 - the 'me' and the 'not me' -
48:07 has evolved
in this traditional cleavage,
48:12 division, fragmentation.
48:17 Now, can that mind
observe this fact,
48:24 observe without the observer,
48:28 and only then
there is a regeneration.
48:32 As long as there is
an observer observing this,
48:36 then there is a conflict.
48:37 I don't know if
I make myself clear.
48:38 A: Yes, you do. You make yourself
very clear on two levels.
48:42 On the level of discourse alone,
48:43 - which I know
is not your major concern -
48:46 on a level of discourse
alone it necessarily follows
48:50 that it must be the case
that this possibility exists,
48:56 otherwise we would
be talking nonsense.
49:00 But then the agony of
the situation at large
49:06 that we have been describing
49:08 is simply that whether
this can be done or no
49:13 never occurs to a person,
49:15 and in the absence
of it even occurring,
49:20 the repetition is going
to continue indefinitely
49:24 and things are going
to get worse and worse.
49:26 K: Sir, the difficulty is
most people won't even listen.
49:33 A: I'm sighing. I know that.
49:37 K: Won't listen.
49:39 If they do listen,
they listen with their conclusions.
49:45 If I am a Communist,
I will listen to you up to a point.
49:50 After that
I won't listen to you.
49:55 And if I am slightly demented,
50:00 I will listen to you
and translate what I hear
50:04 according to my dementia.
A: Exactly.
50:09 K: So one has to be
extraordinarily serious to listen.
50:16 Serious in the sense
put aside my peculiar prejudices
50:21 and idiosyncrasies
and listen to what you are saying,
50:26 because
the listening is the miracle:
50:34 not what shall I do
with what you have said.
50:38 A: Not what shall I listen to.
50:41 K: But the act of listening.
A: But
50:43 the act of listening itself.
50:46 We are back to 'ing'
where there's listening itself.
50:52 K: That requires... I mean,
50:53 you are good enough
to listen to me
50:56 because you want to find out.
50:58 But the vast majority say,
what are you talking about,
51:01 I want to go on enjoying myself,
51:03 so go and talk to somebody else.
51:06 So, to create an atmosphere,
51:13 to create an ambience,
51:16 a feeling that:
life is dreadfully serious,
51:19 my friend, do listen.
51:22 It's your life,
don't waste it, do listen.
51:26 To bring about a human being
that will listen
51:31 is the greatest importance,
51:34 because
we don't want to listen.
51:37 It's too disturbing.
51:41 A: I understand.
51:42 I have tried sometimes in class
to make this very point.
51:49 And sometimes I suggest that
we should watch the animal,
51:56 especially the wild animal,
52:00 because if it's not listening
it's likely dead.
52:03 K: Dead, yes, sir.
52:05 A: There is this extraordinary
attention that it makes,
52:11 and every instant of its life
is a crisis.
52:17 K: Absolutely.
52:20 A: And you know what happens,
52:22 the eyes out there show in the main
that they are thinking
52:25 I am talking about
animal psychology.
52:28 I'm not talking about
psychology at all,
52:30 I'm talking about what is
the case which is either-or,
52:34 and there isn't any way
to get from either to or.
52:37 That's what I mean.
So I think I understand you.
52:41 K: In America
what is happening now,
52:44 as I observe it
- I may be mistaken -
52:48 they are not serious.
52:51 They are playing
with new things,
52:56 something entertaining,
go from one thing to the other.
53:02 And they think
this is searching.
53:06 A: Searching!
53:09 K: Searching, asking,
53:11 but they get trapped
in each one of them. A: Yes.
53:15 K: And at the end of it
they have nothing but ashes.
53:19 So it is becoming
more and more difficult
53:23 for human beings
to be serious, to listen,
53:30 to see what they are,
not what they should be.
53:36 A: No. What is the case.
K: What is.
53:38 A: Exactly.
53:39 K: That means: 'please
do listen for five minutes!'
53:51 In this conversation
you are listening,
53:55 because you are interested,
you want to find out,
53:57 but the vast majority of
people say, for God's sake,
54:01 leave me alone,
I have my little house,
54:05 my wife, my car, my yacht,
or whatever it is,
54:08 for God's sake, don't change
anything as long as I live.
54:13 A: You know, going back to
what I do know something about,
54:19 namely the Academy, because
54:21 I am situated there in
terms of day-to-day activity.
54:27 I've often remarked to myself
in attending conferences,
54:30 where papers are read,
that nobody is listening.
54:36 It's one long monologue.
54:40 And after a while
you get the feeling
54:42 that it really is
a shocking waste of time.
54:45 And even to sit down
and have coffee,
54:48 the discussion, say,
between classes,
54:52 usually runs
on the basis of babble,
54:57 we are just talking
about things that
55:00 we are not
genuinely interested,
55:01 in order to fill up space.
55:04 This, however, is far
more serious a matter
55:11 than simply a description
of what's going on.
55:13 K: It's a matter, I feel,
of life and death.
55:17 If the house is burning,
I've got to do something.
55:21 It isn't I am going to discuss
who burned the house.
55:25 A: No. No.
K: What colour his hair was,
55:27 whether it was black
or white or purple.
55:29 I want to put that fire out.
55:32 A: Or: if such and such
had not happened
55:34 the house
would not be burning.
55:36 Right. I know, I know.
K: And I feel it is so urgent,
55:43 because I see it in India,
I see in Europe and America,
55:47 everywhere I go, this sense of
55:50 slackness, sense of, you know,
55:54 despair, and sense of
hopeless activity that is going on.
56:01 So to come back
to what we are saying,
56:06 relationship is
the highest importance.
56:11 When in that relationship
there is conflict,
56:14 we produce a society
which will further that conflict,
56:22 through education,
through national sovereignties,
56:25 through all the rest of it
that is going on in the world.
56:28 So, a serious man,
56:32 serious in the sense
who is really concerned, committed,
56:37 must give his total attention
56:41 to this question of relationship,
freedom and knowledge.
56:48 A: If I've heard you correctly,
56:52 and I don't mean by that
words that have passed between us,
56:55 but if I have truly heard you,
56:58 I've heard something
very terrifying:
57:04 that this disorder
that in part we have described
57:12 has a built-in necessity in it.
57:17 As long as it persists,
it can never change.
57:24 It can never change.
K: Obviously.
57:26 A: Any modification of it is...
K: Further disorder.
57:30 A: more of the same.
K: More of the same.
57:32 A: More of the same.
57:34 I have the feeling and I hope
57:38 I have understood
you correctly, that
57:42 there is a relationship between
57:44 the starkness of this necessity
57:47 and the fact that there
cannot be a gradual progress or,
57:52 as a philosopher would put it,
57:55 something like
essential progress,
57:59 but nevertheless there is
some demonic progress
58:05 that takes place
58:06 within this disorder,
that is not so much a progress
58:10 as it is a proliferation
of the same. Necessarily so.
58:17 Is that what you've been saying?
Necessarily so.
58:19 K: You know, that word 'progress',
I was told the other day,
58:24 meant entering into
enemy's country fully armed.
58:29 A: Really?
58:34 Progress is entering into an
enemy's country fully armed.
58:41 Dear me!
58:43 K: Sir, this is what is happening.
A: Oh, I know.
58:47 Next time we converse,
the next time,
58:53 I would like very much,
if you would be good enough,
58:56 to pursue precisely
what we have just come to,
59:00 namely this necessity,
and the necessity
59:04 that produced that statement.
K: Yes, quite.