September 15, 2019
  • 9:12 am The 6 Questions That Led Me to Christianity
  • 9:12 am Christianity and Humanism – Stefan Gustavsson (Part 2)
  • 9:12 am Jagmeet Singh on the campaign trail | Day 2
  • 9:12 am Amrit Vela
  • 9:12 am The Differences Between The Major Branches Of Islam
Audio | J. Krishnamurti – Madras (Chennai) 1972 – Public Discus. 2 – Meditation, freedom from the…


This is J. Krishnamurti’s second public
discussion in Madras, 1972. Krishnamurti: What shall we talk over together
this morning? Question: What is unity of perception and
direct reference on the activation of glands? K: Unity of perception. Who invented that phrase? Q: I heard it in one of your talks. K: Ah, too bad! [Laughter] Q: Sir, is it possible for one to speed up
the healing process in another who is physically ill? One is physically ill; can I speed up the
healing process in him? K: Someone is ill and you want to help him
to get speedily well – is that it? Q: The healing is going on, can I assist him? K: Can you assist in the healing process – is
that what you want to discuss? Q: How is learning of the moving thing possible? I use the word ‘how’ for investigation. K: How is it possible to investigate a living
thing. Q: Sir, can you discuss meditation and its
application to daily problems of life? Q: Sir, in this modern, world… K: Wait, sir. Can we talk over together what is meditation
and its relationship to daily life. Q: Sir, in this modern… K: Sir, I haven’t even finished. Yes, sir? Q: In this modern life, complex life, how
to get rid of worries, anxieties and tension so that a man can live mentally in tranquillity? K: How can one live in this world with tranquillity
and peace, though you are doing business? Q: Not for business, in daily life – anxiety,
worries, tension – can you teach us how we can… K: How is it possible to apply… how to live
peacefully though one is living rather crookedly – [laughter] – is that it? Is that it, sirs? Q: Yes. K: Why bother about peace? Live crookedly! [Laughs] Now, what would you like to discuss? Sir, I am not being funny, but how can you
talk about tranquillity and peace and yet live in a world that is so destructive, morally
corrupt? So you can’t live in that world. There is no other answer, is there? What shall we talk over together? Would you like to talk over that thing, that
question? Q: Sir, meditation and its application to
life. K: Do you want to discuss meditation? Q: Yes, of course, sir. Meditation, we would like to discuss, if you
don’t mind and consider it too much. We would like to know, personally touching
upon yourself, sir, whether… Could you please discuss the thing right from
the depth of your… [inaudible] K: I don’t quite follow your question, sir. Q: No, sir. They have been talking and discussing without
attention, so many conflicts and problems. Now, when you talk about them I am quite sure…
[inaudible] K: I see, I see. When you wrote At the Feet of the Master and
now what you are talking about, is there a difference in attention from their period
to now? Is that the question, sir? Q: Yes. Also whether we are actually… K: Wait, wait – is that the question? Are you interested in this? Q: Yes. Q: What is learning? K: Are you interested in that question? Q: Meditation in life. K: Wait, wait, sir. Are you interested in this question: you wrote
At the Feet of the Master and then now you are saying something perhaps totally different. Was there attention then at that time when
you wrote At the Feet of the Master – is the same attention continuous and expresses
itself differently now? Is that the question? Q: Yes. K: Is that what you want to discuss? Q: Yes, that’s what we want. Q: [Inaudible] Q: What is it, including the cause, whether
it is inborn right from the beginning of your birth, the attention was, or just like as
we are here… K: Ah, I have got it. I have got it. Are you an exception or can we all have it
– is that it? Q: Yes. K: Right, sir? Q: One way of putting it. K: I am putting it very simply. Are you an exception or you’re like the
rest of us. Why do you bother about me? Right? Why do you bother about what K is or what
K has been through? What is important isn’t it, sir, what you
are, what you are doing, how you are living, not how K came by this. Q: No, sir. There is much more in it. If you say right from the beginning it has
no meaning whatsoever… [inaudible] K: I may not understand Tamil but would you
speak slower, sir? Q: I shall make it simple. K: Simple, sir. I have got a simple mind, so… Q: What I am interested in, whether the attention
is right from the beginning, because… [inaudible] K: Are you interested in that question? Audience: No. K: No. Thank God! [Laughter] I am not being… We may discuss it another time, sir. Q: Sir, could we go back to meditation and
what you feel about meditation? K: Do you want to discuss that? A: Yes. K: Yes? We are quite sure? What do you know about meditation, sir? What do you know? Please tell me what you know. [Pause] I am waiting for an answer. What do you know about meditation? Q: Nothing, sir. K: Nothing? Q: Except what we have read here and there. K: So you know nothing – can we start from
that? Q: Yes. K: No, no, please, be very honest. You really know nothing about meditation except
what other people have said, and you have tried to either copy, imitate or conform to
what other people have said, but you yourself don’t know the implications and the significance
and the depth of meditation. Right? Can we start from there, that you know absolutely
nothing first hand? Q: Yes. K: Can we start with that? A: Yes. K: Right. Why should one meditate? Tell me, sirs, why should you meditate? What is the reason of meditation? And what do you mean by that word ‘meditate’? The verbal, dictionary meaning of that word
means to ponder over, to think over, to consider, to have the capacity to look into – that
word means all that. Now, why should you meditate at all? If you know nothing about it, if you have
not read a thing about it – as I have not read a thing about it – why should one meditate? Please, come on, sir, help me. Q: We don’t know what meditation is. K: But you all use that word, you all said
let’s discuss it, let’s find out what meditation is. If you don’t know what that word is, if
you don’t know what it means, I am asking, why should you meditate at all? Q: To acquire peace of mind. K: To acquire peace of mind. Why do you want peace of mind? Q: To get out of tension. K: Just investigate, sir, don’t… I am not doubting, I am not saying you should… Why should you have peace of mind? Q: To get out of tension. K: To be free of tension. Then why don’t you take a tranquilliser? Q: That is artificial. K: You think that’s artificial? Then when you call to have peace of mind and
you think you will get it through meditation, isn’t that artificial? Q: But it’s inner reality. K: Oh – that is inner reality. Now, go step by step. What do you mean by inner reality? You people just say things. I am asking you, sir, why you should meditate
at all? Q: Because somebody has said that though meditation
you will have peace. Apart from that, I don’t know. K: We have said, not knowing what it is, what
is the meaning and the significance of that word, and we are trying to find out why should
I meditate. Why should I meditate? Q: To control anger. K: Oh, sir, please just listen to it. Why should I meditate? Q: It keeps the mind… [inaudible] K: To have peace of mind? Q: Concentrate on a particular theme. K: You mean concentration? Q: Simplicity of mind. K: Oh for the love of… Do you mean to say, sir – why do you want
to control? Why do you want to control your mind? Why do you want to control your feelings? Q: [Inaudible] Q: If my mind is not in control I am afraid
it will bring problems. Q: It may also lead to chaos. K: If you don’t control, it may lead to
chaos. Aren’t you living in chaos? Q: Yes. K: So why do you control? Q: It will be worse if you don’t control. K: It will be worse if you don’t control
– how do you know? It is pretty bad now isn’t it? Q: Yes. K: Then if control has produced this chaos
in the world – and more control will produce more chaos. So I am asking myself and you: why I should
meditate at all? Where do I start? Not knowing what meditation is, not knowing
directly for myself what is the implication of meditation, not having read books, not
wanting to imitate what others have said, where shall I start? Shall I start with control? Q: Yes. K: Don’t say yes, sir, this is not a guessing
game, this. [Laughs] Where shall I start? Q: In order to understand things better. K: So you say, ‘I will meditate in order
to understand things better’? That is, why should I meditate to understand
things better? Who is the meditator? Oh, you people don’t think about it! So, sir, just listen, sir. Not having read, not having heard any guru
talk about it, any book, and so on, so on – push all that aside, if you can, which
is a very difficult thing to do, because you have all read about it, you have all tried
to practise meditation, you have all tried some kind breathing, and all the rest of it,
not knowing anything about it, where shall I start? I want to investigate – you understand,
sir? – I really want to investigate into this
whole question of meditation. Because there are schools all over the world
where they are teaching meditation – there is the Zen meditation, there is the contemplation
of certain sects or monks in Christianity, there is the meditation of the so-called Muslims,
and so on – there are a dozen varieties of meditation. I know nothing about it. Just a minute, sir. Not knowing nothing about it, I say where
shall I start, about all these things they are talking about? I know nothing. They may be all caught in an illusion. I want to find out. Right? Right, sir? Now, please tell me, where shall I start? Q: Shall we continue from where you left the
other day? K: Shall I
continue where we left it from yesterday, the day before? I’ve forgotten it. Q: About awareness. K: Madame, this is part of awareness, what
we are doing. So I say to myself, I have to understand first
before I investigate. No, investigation is only possible about something
which I don’t know by investigating what I know. Right? Can we start with that? I can investigate what I know, not what I
don’t know about. Can I? Come with me, sir. I can only investigate what I know, not what
I don’t know about. Now, what do I know? What do I know? Listen carefully. What do I know which is not second-hand, which
is not what other people have said I am, what the book said I am, what the philosopher says
I am, not the analyst, and so on, so on – I say: what do I know? Q: I don’t know. K: Sir, just listen! Investigate into yourself – what do you
know? Q: Nothing. Q: I don’t know anything at all. K: Is that true? Q: Yes. K: Be honest sir, please don’t say… Is that true – you know nothing? Yes, sir? Q: I know I am. K: You know you are. What do you mean by that word ‘you know
you are’? Sir, may I go a little bit into it? Will you agree to that? I cannot investigate about something I don’t
know. I can only investigate what I know – and
investigate what I know, whether it is second-hand information, something handed down to me,
or something original. So I begin to question whether there is anything
original in the construction of the ‘me’. Right? Are you following all this, sir? Oh, don’t go to sleep, please. Are you interested in this? A: Yes. K: Oh my Lord! I want to find out if I am totally second-hand
or is there something which is not touched by the culture, the society, the morality,
the economic conditions, the education, and so on. You have understood my question? I want to find out if there is anything which
is original, pristine, untouched by society, by the culture I live in, by the religion
in which I have been brought up. Right? Right, sir? Now, I am going to investigate. Together – don’t just, please, listen
to me. [Laughs] I am going to investigate if there
is anything original. I can only do that by investigating all my
second-hand knowledge. Right? Right, sir? Now, my education has been to cultivate the
memory through text books. Right? So, the whole structure of memory has been
emphasised through education in order that I should have a job and survive in a world
that is so constructed that each one has to fight for himself – whether it is the communist
society or the Mao society or the capitalist society, it’s based on that principle. So, memory has played a tremendous part in
my life. Please, sir, I am not talking – I can go
to my room and talk to myself – but we are investigating together. So do you see this? Right? Can we move from there? So I see as long as I function, as the mind
functions in the field of memory, it is either the memory of the present education, culture,
society, economic condition, or it is the memory handed down through tradition. Right? That’s all I know. Right? No? Oh come on, sir! I can invent out of that… mind can invent
out of that memory something… super-memory, super-God, super-Brahman, super-consciousness,
super ideals, and so on, but it is all out of that field of this memory the things are
born. Right? So, is my mind entirely composed of a series
of incidents, experiences and knowledge, which have been handed down, or which the mind has
acquired during its process of education? Right? That’s all there is. No? Oh, you go to sleep! [Laughs] So you go to sleep. Q: Krishnamurti? Isn’t there an action of the memory – at
the moment I look at something and I see something – isn’t that something new which is stimulating
the memory? K: How do I know that it is something new? Q: Yes, but the moment it becomes knowledge
it… K: Then I can never say that it is new or
old. The moment I say that it is new, that very
word ‘new’ implies that I have recognised it as to be new. And that recognition is born out of the memory
of the past. Please, this is… Right? So, I find in investigating myself, the mind
which is operating in daily life, that it is functioning always within the field of
the known. Right, sir? The known – the known being the family,
the job, the desire to survive, the economic position, the culture – the known, which
is knowledge. Right, sir? To investigate something further, the mind
must be free of the known. Right? Right, sir? Do you see that? I have come to… the mind has come to the
point to say, yes that is perfectly right, that is logical, sane – unless of course
one is insane and a little bit distorted, and so on, so on – but the mind is always
functioning within the field of the known. Right? It may invent a super-unknown but it is still
the reaction of the known. Q: Is there only not to know? K: I said I don’t know. [Laughs] I say… the mind says after investigating:
there is only the field of knowledge. Right? To investigate if there is something further,
the mind must be free of the known. Right? Q: To investigate further, why should we be
free of the known? K: Sir, you haven’t listened to what I said. Q: How can the known get rid of itself? K: I don’t know, sir, I am going to go into
it. I am going to go into it step by step, if
we together are going into it. The mind functions – the mind being the
brain, the nerves, the feeling, psychosomatic unit. You understand what is psychosomatic? Body and the mind together, not separate. All that is within the field of the known. That is the field of knowledge. To that knowledge I can take away from that
knowledge, take away or add. It is always within that field. Now, I say… mind says to itself, now, to
investigate anything further, the mind must be free of this knowledge. Right? Right, sir? Whether it is possible or not, that is a different
matter. Q: Why should the mind be free of the known? K: I said to you, sir, to investigate something
further, the mind must be free of the known. If I want to investigate into the nature of
Jupiter, I must put aside all the conclusions I have about Jupiter and enquire. No? So the mind says: can the mind ever be free
of the known? That is, the known being the past, which passing
through the present modifies the future, which is time. Are you following all this? [Laughs] No, I am afraid you are not. You are just listening mechanically, as usual. Now, the known is the field of my action,
is the field of action. And to find out something more, if there is
anything more, the mind must be free of the known. Is that possible? Right, sir? Now, who is to free it? Right? A super-agency – God, doesn’t matter,
whatever it is – an agency outside the field of knowledge? Are we meeting each other? Somebody meet me, sir! [Laughs] Q: There is nothing in my mind except the
knowledge. K: That’s all. I understand. Q: If there is something else, I can’t reach
to it. K: I am enquiring, sir. I know the mind functions within the field
of knowledge, always. To enquire if there something more, the mind
must be free of the known. Is that possible? Q: Yes. K: One moment. Is that possible? You say yes – how do you know? Q: It is impossible. K: You say it is impossible – how do you
know? Q: There is nothing but knowledge. How can it be free of knowledge? K: I don’t know, I am going to… Q: Investigate. Q: How do you make that statement that it
must be free of the known? K: Sir, look, I say – please listen, sir
– the mind, the brain, everything functions within the field of knowledge. Right? To find out if there is something more, or
not, I must be free from this field. It is so simple, sir! Q: [Inaudible] K: I don’t know any… Q: [Inaudible] K: I am using the word simply. Keep to that word, sir, please. You see how you… Sir, I want to trot along – you prevent
it. The mind finds it acts, functions, operates
only in the field of knowledge. That knowledge is experience, communal experience,
and so on, so on, so on, which is the past, which is time. Now, can the mind be free of this field of
knowledge in order to go beyond? There may be no beyond but it wants to find
out. That is, an animal that has been tied to a
tree cannot go very far. It is only when it is untied it can go very
far. Similarly the mind, untied to knowledge, can
go very far – or maybe no further at all. So, I am asking: can the mind free itself
from its own knowledge? So, from that question arises: who is to free
it? The guru? The guru? An invention of the mind as the super-agency? The higher consciousness – which is still
part of the field of knowledge? You are following all this? No, you are not. Brahman? God? Jesus? Krishna? Buddha? [Laughs] Who is to free it? Q: Sir, there must be something within which
can… K: Don’t say ‘there must be’ – then
you are theoretical, then you are speculating. Q: No, I’m talking about experience. It is impossible to watch one’s own thoughts. K: No, I haven’t come to that yet. Please, sir, follow it step by step. You will get yourself the answer. I don’t know what the answer is going to
be but we’ll get it. So, mind sees it can invent a super-consciousness,
hoping thereby to free it from the known. And it says, ‘By Jove, that’s an illusion,
I won’t enter into that.’ So it rejects any form of an outside agency. Right? Then what will free it? You have understood my question? If there is no outside agency to free it – and
an outside agency is an invention of the known, as the God, the inner self, the outer self,
the Brahman – you follow? – it can invent any number of outside agencies, and when the
mind sees these inventions are reactions to escape from the known, therefore it says:
all those don’t count, they are all illusion. Then it says: is it possible to free myself
from the known? Right? Are you in that position? Have you rejected all outside agencies – tradition,
Gita, the Upanishads, your guru, your gods, your beliefs – all outside agencies invented
by knowledge, which says, ‘I can’t get out of this, therefore I hope there is something
outside which will help me to get out of it’? Right? Therefore, all movement of knowledge, to go
beyond itself, is illusion. You see something, sir? You get it? Do you get it? No, no. So illusion is the escape from the known. Right? Don’t agree with me, sir. You have to operate, not just say, ‘Well,
I agree with you,’ and go on with your ashes and puja, and gurus. All that is out if you are serious. So, it says: what am I to do? Right? Q: You are talking about illusion. But the known can also be an illusion. K: The known is not an illusion – I know
how to ride a bicycle. Q: But if you see the known as something…
[inaudible] K: Sir, the language which I know – English,
Sanskrit or French or Italian – I know. That is not an illusion, because I communicate
with you in English. I know it is not an illusion when I ride a
bicycle. I know it is not an illusion when I travel
in an aeroplane. I know it is not an illusion when I drive
a car, when I do a job. So don’t reduce… I said illusion is when the mind finds that
it cannot escape from the field of knowledge and tries to go beyond it. That is illusion. Right? See the beauty of it, sir, how it uncurls. Now, then the mind says, ‘What am I to do? Why it is necessary to go beyond at all? This is all right’ – why don’t I accept
this? Right? Why don’t I accept this field of knowledge
as the only thing that matters? Right? Why don’t you accept it? Q: Actually we have accepted it. K: No, sir – then you have no guru, then
you have no outside belief, then you have no God. I said that is all I know. Right, sir? So I say, now, what is the field of knowledge? Right? The field of knowledge is the acquired inherited
tradition, education, the conditioning which society, religion, culture has imposed on
my mind. Why don’t I… why doesn’t the mind say,
‘All right, I’ll live there’? Q: Because it’s extremely uncomfortable. K: Therefore, to live there is extremely uncomfortable. See what happens. So the mind, not being able to go beyond,
invents. Right? So, why don’t I put up with the discomfort
of it? Why does the mind put up with the discomfort
of it? You are all in discomfort. Right? Why don’t you put up with it? Q: One is not able to. K: You are able to, sir, that is why we put
up with it. Q: [Inaudible] K: So you say, ‘I can’t put up with it
because…’ – why? Q: I want comfort. K: No, no. Why can’t you put up with the known? Q: [Inaudible] K: Just listen, sir, do look at it for yourself. The known is sorrow – right? – the known
is pain, the known is fear, the known is pleasure, the known is the anxiety, the ambition, the
sense of utter despair, loneliness – that is all the known. The sorrow of tears, laughter – all that
is the known. Why doesn’t that mind say, ‘Sir, that
is enough. I will keep with this’? Come on, sir, go on. I am investigating, you are not. Q: We instinctively want to be free. K: Free from what? Q: From this turmoil. K: So it says, ‘I want to be free from sorrow.’ We’ll take one thing. I want to be free from sorrow. Is that possible? So I must find out. So, I say: what is sorrow? Q: What you cannot bear. K: Is that all, what sorrow is – what you
cannot bear? I can’t bear the tight waistcoat round me
– is that my sorrow? [Laughter] For God’s sake, you people are
so shallow. What is sorrow? Q: What we desire but we cannot achieve. K: What you cannot achieve – that brings
sorrow. What is it that you want to achieve? Become the prime minister? Glorified clerk? What is it you want to achieve? Sir, you are not investigating. Go along, sir. What is it you want to achieve? Which says, ‘If I don’t achieve that,
there will be sorrow.’ What is it you want to achieve? Enlightenment? Q: Permanent happiness. K: Permanent happiness? Q: Something different from the rest. K: Oh, you people! Q: Security. K: Security. I want security. What kind of security? Physical security? Physical security? Do you want physical security? Q: [Inaudible] K: Wait, sir, go step by step. Do you want physical security? Q: Yes, sir. K: We all do. Now, how do you have physical security? Can you have security if war is going to take
place? Can you? So, to have security you can’t have war. Right? War is the result of economic division – no? – social division, class division, national
division. So if you want security, these must go. Are you willing to do that? Sir, come on! So you really don’t want physical security. All that you want is to be left alone with
the little security that you have now. Right? And when that security is threatened you are
disturbed – and that you call sorrow. My Lord! Is that sorrow? When your bank account is taken away, when
you lose your little job, is that sorrow? So we have to say: what is sorrow? Do you follow, sir? We are investigating. So what is sorrow? I lose my brother John, or Rao or whatever
the name is. I lose my brother – what does that mean? Haven’t you lost a brother, wife? I hope you have not, but haven’t some of
you lost brothers, wives, husbands, sisters, sons? What does that mean? How can I talk with you people? Q: I have lost a companion. K: No, sir, you are repeating what I have
said. Don’t read books. For God’s sake, think! When you say ‘sorrow’ what do you mean
by it? Q: Death. K: Death. Q: Losing somebody. K: Losing somebody whom you think you love
– that’s right? Investigate. That is, you say, ‘I suffer. I am in great sorrow, I’ve shed tears, I
can’t sleep. I have lost somebody whom I loved a great
deal.’ So, I am suffering. Right? What do you mean by that word ‘suffering’? Q: [Inaudible] K: Sir, don’t theorise. Haven’t you suffered? So what does that mean? Q: When something is denied. K: Something denied. My food is denied – do I suffer? I am denied clothes – is that suffering? That is part of suffering. I am denied shelter, I am denied from becoming
a beastly politician, I am denied this or that – is that suffering? Q: [Inaudible] K: Do listen, sir. I must find out… the mind must find out
what is suffering – what does it mean? You say, ‘Yes, I have lost my son and I
am terribly upset, I am full of sorrow’ – what does that mean? Q: We don’t know. Q: Pain? K: What does it mean, sir? Q: I don’t know. Q: There is pain. K: Pain. Pain because I have lost my son? Q: Void. K: Oh! Sir, haven’t you lost somebody, haven’t
you cried, haven’t you…? What does that mean? Q: It is an emotional reaction to a situation
where you the individual… [inaudible]. It is your reaction to something… Q: How depressing. K: I have lost my son. Q: And I loved my son… K: Wait, madame, I understand. I have lost my son, my brother, my father,
my mother, my wife, and I suffer, I shed tears, I want to see him, I want to find out if he
exists after life. I don’t know – they say he does. But all that doesn’t alleviate or soften
my suffering. So I say: why am I suffering, what does this
mean? You understand, sir? You don’t answer it. I have to answer you. Q: We all react to something. K: Reaction to what? Q: Feeling of separation. K: Feeling of separation. That is, my son and I were united, were together,
and I have lost him. Therefore he is not, therefore I feel separate. Now go slowly into this, sir. Now, separation – was I ever united with
him? Q: You shared something with him, you shared
the experience with him, and then suddenly that person… K: Madame, are you answering the question? I am not saying you are not – I can’t
quite hear. Are you saying – I am asking the question
– were you ever united with your son, with your wife, husband, all the rest of it, to
feel that you are separated? When you say ‘separated’, what is separation? Q: I have lost the support. K: You lost the economic support if he is
an old boy, the older person, and so on. You are not answering my question. Q: Sir, myself left alone. K: Left alone. You are left alone – you feel lonely, separate,
you have no companion and you had a companion – you walked together, you talked together,
you laughed together, you looked at the same things and did all kinds of things together,
and suddenly that person has gone. And you say, ‘I am… Oh, how terrible. I am in tears.’ Now please go a little further – what is
this suffering? Q: [Inaudible] K: Which is, all the investment I made in
my son is gone. Be simple, sir – I am putting ‘investment’
in the sense: my affection, my hope, he was going to inherit my property, if I have a
little property, and so on – all the investment I have put in him is lost. I am separate from him. And I say: is that what is causing sorrow? Q: The thing which is known to you already,
you are worrying yourself. It is a plain fact when a child comes from
the mother’s womb, what does it bring? It brings only death – birth, death. K: Are you talking philosophically or actually? [Laughter] Are you talking abstractly, verbally,
or are you talking actually as your direct experience? Q: I am talking actually, sir. K: You are not a mother are you? [Laughter] It’s all so childish when you
talk like this. Q: It is an unbroken experience of memory. K: Sir, I come to you with sorrow and you
give me ashes – words, words, words, words. You have done nothing but that. I want to find out it means. I want to find out if this mind can ever be
free from sorrow – not words. And you are giving nothing but words. Q: You are going to remember whoever it was. K: Yes, madame. Q: Isn’t that why sorrow…? K: I’ve lost my son. I remember him, how playful he was, how nice
he was, how beautiful he was – memory. The memory remains and the person is gone. And I like to have him without the memory. Sir, please, I am asking you: what is suffering? Q: [Inaudible] K: You people are impossible to talk to. You really don’t connect yourself with the
fact. The fact is something and you are somewhere
else. So, please connect yourself with the fact. The fact is I have lost my son, I have shed
tears, and I say to myself, ‘I am suffering a great deal.’ Therefore I am asking what is this suffering
that human beings go through always, throughout the centuries, from Egypt, Romans, Greeks,
Persians – every human being that has lived on earth has been through this aching sorrow. Not, perhaps, you. And I say, ‘What is this thing that man
goes through, what is this sorrow?’ Q: [Inaudible] K: You see, sir, how impossible it is with
these people? Verbal statements are ashes when somebody
is suffering. Somebody wants food and you give them words. Q: It comes because you feel for the other
person. K: So, you feel for the other person, that
is, I wish my son had lived. He showed promise of being a great artist
or this or that, and now he is gone. Q: Not necessarily that way. He is no more. K: He is no more. That’s right, sir, he is no more. Q: You don’t think about his future. You don’t have to. K: He is no more. And why do I suffer? Q: Because I can’t hear him, I can’t see
him, I can’t enjoy his company… [inaudible] K: How extraordinary! Q: [Inaudible] K: I am asking, sir, what is suffering? I can explain to you – I have lost a son,
he was my companion, I have put all my hope in him, I have failed in life, whatever that
failure means, and I hope he will succeed. I have immortalised him – you understand? – so he has become my son – I have identified
myself with him, and now he is gone. Or I say, ‘He is gone,’ and yet I suffer. Right? I don’t say, ‘Well, he is gone, let’s
dance.’ I am in agony. Now I say to myself: what is this agony, what
is this sense of suffering? Q: Dependence. K: Add that, add that, sir, add that to what
I have said – dependence. You haven’t added any more. Q: Intense feeling. Q: We really don’t know what suffering is,
I mean the true meaning of it. K: I don’t think you gentlemen know a thing
about it. You talk about it. Q: I have pleasure. Certain satisfaction to a person. K: Yes, sir, add all that – satisfaction,
pleasure, annoyance, sex, whatever it is – and you have lost him. Please, sir. I am attached, now I am detached. I have put all my faith in him. He is gone. He was my hope, he’s gone. And I realise rationally he is finished, he
is no longer there. But I suffer. Now, don’t explain any more, add any more. Q: [Inaudible] Q: Is this is our image? K: That is image. You are adding another chapter, but it is
the same book. You are all talking about the same book with
a different chapter. But I am going further. I am saying: what is this suffering that I
go through? Q: [Inaudible] K: That is another chapter. All right, you’ve added a hundred chapters. Q: [Inaudible] K: Yes, that is good. You see, sir, what kind of minds you have
produced? Q: What is it that you are asking? K: I am asking you something. I am asking you what is this suffering? Q: What is sorrow? K: Yes, that’s all – what is sorrow that
I feel? Q: The experience. Q: What do you mean by asking what is sorrow? Q: I don’t think you can put it in words. K: I am going to put it into words. Q: [Inaudible] K: You people can’t even think. Q: [Inaudible] Q: No, what is the question you are asking? K: I am asking, sir: why do I suffer? Why do I suffer, and what is this thing called
suffering? You understand? Q: Why do I suffer… [inaudible] K: Now, what is this suffering? Please, just listen. Is the suffering caused by all the chapters
you have given, or is suffering independent of the chapters? Q: [Inaudible] K: I am investigating – please go slow. Be gentle, sir, this is rather difficult. I have added chapter after chapter – I have
compiled a book for the causes of sorrow. Now, is sorrow independent of the cause, or
sorrow is the result of the cause, result of the book? You understand, sir? You’ve understood what I am talking? Just that bit. Go slowly. I have collected a volume of all the reasons
why I suffer – attachment, loss, companionship, feeling of loneliness, separation, and so
on, so on, so on, so on – I have compiled a whole book of explanations why I suffer. So I say to myself: is the explanation the
cause of suffering? Is the book the cause of suffering, or is
suffering something entirely different? I am investigating – I don’t say it is
or it is not. Have you…? No you don’t… Are you going to sleep, sirs? Now, this raises another point. [Laughs] My consciousness is its content. Right? If there is no content there is no consciousness. So the content is consciousness. Right? Do you see that? The consciousness of K is the furniture, is
the book, is the identification with the house. His consciousness is his education, and so
on, so on. The content is consciousness. The content of the house is the house – the
walls, the furniture, the space, and so on, is the house. So the content of consciousness is consciousness. So, I am asking: sorrow is the content of
the book? You understand, sir? Or is there sorrow without the book? Don’t say no – you haven’t even understood. I haven’t even understood what I am talking. Q: Sir, may I speak? I have found out for myself that when I am
feeling some sorrow, all that is involved in my sorrow, that I am more worried about
myself than the other person. K: So you are adding another chapter, which
is self pity. Self pity and not the other. All right. You follow? I am losing my thread – I can’t let you
interfere with something which I am investigating. Q: I see that in sorrow I am free of… [inaudible] K: Good. Q: [Inaudible] K: Sir, please, sir, I don’t think I have
understood it yet, so don’t ask me. Look, sir, first see it – the content of
my consciousness is its content. Is that right? Your consciousness is what you think – your
furniture, your wife, your pleasure, your anxiety, your losing a job or getting a success
– all the content makes up this consciousness. Without the content there is no consciousness. Q: Consciousness is not a product. K: Of course it is. Q: No. K: Why? Q: The wall isn’t conscious about you. K: The wall is dead stuff – I am talking
about myself. Q: There’s a difference… K: Sir, what are you talking about? Q: I’m talking about what I feel. K: Now, wait, sir – what is consciousness? That which is alive, that which is thinking,
feeling. The wall is not – maybe the atoms that compose
the wall may have it’s own feeling. So leave the walls alone. You, your consciousness, Mr X’s consciousness,
is what he thinks, what he feels, his knowledge, his identification with the country, with
the book, with the wife, with the family, the money, the bank account, the furniture
– all that is his consciousness – it is obvious. Q: Without consciousness you are not able
to see all these things. K: I didn’t say that, sir. Q: Consciousness is not a product. K: It is the product. If you do not identify yourself with the furniture,
if the furniture didn’t exist, where is consciousness? Q: You are putting it too simply. K: It is simple. I want it kept flat. I don’t want to have… Q: Not too fast. K: I am sorry, I must go on with investigating
this – it is marvellous, I am coming to something. Let’s go along, please, have ten minutes
patience. I see consciousness is it’s content. It’s content makes up consciousness. There is no consciousness as we know now,
without it’s content. Q: Now you have modified it. K: No, no, no, I have not modified, sir. Don’t be… don’t be… How you want something more! [Laughs] I am cutting it. I will not accept something more till I come
upon it, till the mind comes upon it. So I say: is sorrow the content of the book? Do you understand, sir? You have got it? The chapters – chapter after chapter, word
after word, the loneliness, separation – you follow? Is the content of the sorrow the book? If the book is not, is there sorrow? You understand that? You have understood what I am saying, sir? Just verbal understanding – enough for the
moment. Q: I don’t follow you, sir. If you speak to the mic, sir, I will follow
you. K: I am so sorry. Look, sir, I want to begin again. Just let me begin. Q: [Inaudible] K: Yes. My son is dead. I have lost him. One way to treat it is to say, ‘Yes, that
is a fact, I have lost him, and there is nothing more to be done.’ Either I get bitter, lonely, scratchy, eccentric,
ugly, or I say, ‘I’d like to see him. I believe in reincarnation. He must exist’ – I go to mediums, I do
all kinds of stuff. That is one chapter. I see that I am lonely – that is another
chapter. I see that I have no companion – that is
another chapter. I see that I have this pain of not being related
to my son, and so on, so on. I have now collected a lot of words, chapters,
rational, true, false – that is the book I have. That is the content of my consciousness. Right? Right, sir? Right? Is there sorrow without the content? As long as there is content there must be
sorrow. When there is no content, there is no sorrow. Oh, you don’t see it. Have some of you got it? No, no, no, sir, don’t repeat this verbally,
it has no meaning – none, no meaning whatsoever. If you repeat it, it will be ash. And when somebody comes to you with hunger
you give him food, not words, not ashes. And that is what you have been doing all this
morning, giving me ashes. So I say to you: what is this suffering? Self-pity, anxiety, loneliness? All these are the books, the content which
makes for sorrow. When the content is not, is there sorrow? Q: I can answer that question only when I
am free of the content. K: I am going to… Just a minute. So, I see… so the mind says: I see consciousness
is its content. Right? As long as there is this content of division
– content is always division. You see it, sir? No, you don’t see it. The moment you say loneliness, self-pity,
invested in my son – they are all separative fragmentary activities. So, consciousness – I get it – consciousness
is the content of contradiction and fragmentation. When the fragmentation is not, consciousness
is something entirely different. Now, that means when the content has no separation
– this, this, this, this – then conflict ceases. Of course. Separation means conflict. So when there is fragmentation there must
be conflict. It is this conflict that makes for consciousness. Right? Obviously, simple. So I say to myself: now, sorrow is the content
of the book, and the book is sorrow. The next question is: how is the mind to be
free of its content – which is time, which is separation, loneliness, this, this, this
– the whole book. How is the mind to be free of that book? Right? Have you followed this, sir? Are you with me? Now, how is the mind to be free of the book? You know what I mean by that book? Now, how? You tell me. This is meditation. [Laughs] From the beginning till now, that
is meditation, to me. You follow, sir? Because you are in contact with reality, not
with some absurd illusion. So, I say, mind says: can the mind, this mind,
be free of the book, of all the chapters? [Pause] Sir, it is your job – find out. So, I will go on. As long as the content is fragmented, consciousness
is – as we know it. When it is not, it may have a different quality,
I don’t know. So, sorrow is the content of the whole book. Right? If the whole book is the content, which brings
sorrow, then how is the mind to be free of the chapters? I am going to find out. Right? So I say, the mind says: what is harmony? Right, sir? And this is relevant – we will come back
to it. What is harmony? You understand, sir? You know what that word ‘harmony’ means? Complete balance, complete health of the body,
of the mind, of the heart – complete. The word ‘whole’ – w-h-o-l-e –
means healthy. Whole means also, holy So, whole means harmony,
healthy, sanity, completeness. So as long as there is fragmentation in the
mind, the chapters, it is not in harmony. Right? So, is harmony possible? You understand? That is, can the body, the organism, the heart,
in the sense affection, love, kindliness, generosity, humility, the deep sense of compassion,
and the mind with its extraordinary intellect, memory – the quality of a real mind that
thinks originally – you follow? – not secondary – can all the three be
in total harmony? If it is, then there is no fragmentation and
therefore there is no conflict and that is harmony. Right? Now, can the mind – please listen, I am
going on – can the mind, the heart – I am just dividing – and the body, be in complete
harmony, so that the body doesn’t want something, the mind doesn’t want something else, and
the heart says, ‘Please, I love you, but I also hate somebody else’? Now can the mind, the heart and the body function
in complete unity, complete harmony, as a whole? That means, ‘whole’ being healthy, holy. I have to find out. Right, sir? So the mind says – listen to all this, this
is meditation, you understand? Oh, you don’t know what it means. Can the body be highly sensitive? If the body is not highly sensitive it cannot
respond totally to the heart. That heart being affection, kind, love, all
the rest of it. So, can the body be sensitive? So, has the body it’s own intelligence? Not imposed intelligence by the mind, which
says to the body: you must do this, that or the other. Are you following all this? No. Have you found out if the body has its own
intelligence? No. Because you have imposed on the body certain
rules and regulations, certain tastes, certain controls. Right? You must do this, you must eat this, you must
have no sex or have sex, you must – you follow? – drill it. And therefore the body has lost its sensitivity. Right? So if you don’t impose, drill it, then the
body has its own intelligence. The organism has its own intelligence, otherwise
you couldn’t function. There is the automatic… all that functions
automatically. But we have disturbed it by the kind of life
we lead. Right? So, the body has its own intelligence without
being told what to do. When it is tired it is tired – leave it
alone – when it wants something… You follow, sir? Never dictate what the body should have, should
not have. That is a marvellous thing. You don’t know about all this. Therefore no control of the body at all. No pushing it, no driving it, no drilling
it. Therefore asceticism is something entirely
different. Are you following all this? Asceticism – that word means ‘ash’ – and
the ascetics, the monks and the so-called religious people have reduced the body to
a state of dullness – right? – and they think that is being ascetic. Asceticism has quite a different meaning. The simplicity of intelligence of it, which
is the function of the body without the interference of a mind which conforms to a pattern. Ah, you don’t see the beauty of it. And so I have to find out what love is, whether
I love anything at all – love a tree, love a bird, love nature. Do you know anything about all this, sirs? Do you love a tree? Do you? Are you sure? Have you ever planted a tree? Q: [Inaudible] K: Would you plant at tree if you are given
convenience? Q: I would. K: Would you look after it, care for it, protect
it? Would you protect the nature? If you protect one tree you protect nature. Therefore you have to go into the whole question
of pollution. [Laughs] So, do you love people? Not the idea of love. Do you love your wife? So we have to find out all that. So harmony means total action in which there
is no division as the body, the mind, the heart – it’s a total action. And that action can take place only when the
mind is not fragmented in itself. Fragmentation exists when there are the contents
which make the book. The book is the content, and that’s why
there is conflict. And that conflict is sorrow. You’ve got it? We will talk more, sir, perhaps, on Sunday
evening… Q: Saturday. K: How quick you are to correct me! [Laughs] ‘Perhaps,’ I said, perhaps! [Laughter] We will talk about meditation – there
is much more involved in this – because meditation is something that is really a most
extraordinary thing if it operates. You know a funnel? You know a funnel, don’t you? If you enter it at one end it comes to a point
and there is nothing more. But if you come through the little point it
opens. You understand? And the openness is endless. That is meditation. To come through the little point, which is
yourself. Right? Right, sir? To penetrate that little point, which is yourself,
which is the known, if you go through that… if the mind goes through that, the expanse
is immeasurable. But if you enter from the open to the little,
you have nothing. Right? And that is what you are all doing. You want words, words, what you have read. That is always entering from the open to the
little, and there is always nothing left at the end of it. So we will talk about all these things – it
is 9 o’clock, we must stop – on Saturday and Sunday.

Jean Kelley

RELATED ARTICLES

1 COMMENTS

  1. roy tacleb Posted on September 5, 2018 at 2:07 pm

    How can you talk about tranquility and peace and yet live in a world that is so destructive morally corrupt? So I find in investigating myself, the mind which is operating in daily life that it is functioning always within the field of the known. The known is sorrow, the known is pain, the known is fear, the known is pleasure, the known is the anxiety, the ambition, the sense of utter despair, loneliness, that's all the known. I have added chapter after chapter. I have compiled a book for the causes of sorrow. If the whole book is the content which brings sorrow then how is the mind to be free of the chapters?

    Not having read books, not wanting to imitate what others have said, where shall I start? The mind says after investigating, there is only the field of knowledge, RIght? To investigate if there is something the mind must be free from. Can the mind be free from this field of knowledge in order to go beyond? there may be no beyond but it wants to find out.
    What is consciousness that which is alive, that which is thinking feeling? The book is the content Not knowing what it is, It is the memory handed down through tradition. That's all I know. All movement of knowledge to go beyond itself is illusion. Verbal statements are ashes. I haven't even understood what I was talking.

    So the content of my consciousness is its content. Your consciousness is what you think. It is simple. How is the mind to be free of that content? Can this mind be free of the book, of all the chapters?

    As long as the content is fragmented, consciousness is as we know it, when it is not, it may have a different quality, i don't know. Without being told what to do, when it is tired, it is tired, leave it alone. Why do you bother about what K is? or What k has been through? what is important isn't it is what you are, what you are doing? how you are living? not how K came by this.

    Can we start from there? That you know absolutely nothing firsthand. Can we start with that?

    What do you mean by inner reality? I am asking myself and you. It is not a guessing game this. This is part of awareness, what we are doing.

    So Investigation is only possible about something which I don't know by investigating what I know, right? Can we start with that? I can investigate what i know, not what I don't know about.

    Is that true? be honest. I want to find out if I am totally secondhand.

    I'm going to investigate if there is anything original. I can only do that by investigating all my secondhand knowledge, right sir?

    Now my education has been to cultivate the memory through textbooks, right? So the whole structure of memory has been emphasized through education in order that I should have a job and survive in a world that is so constructed that each one has to fight for himself, whether it is the communist society or the mao society, or the capitalist society, it's based on the principle.

    So I see as long as i function, as the mind functions in the field of memory, it is either the memory of the present Education, Culture, Society, Economic condition.

    The mind can invent out of the memory something super memory, super God, super Brahman, super consciousness, super ideals and so on, but it's all out of this field of memory that things are born, right?

    So is my mind entirely composed of a series of incidents, experiences and knowledge which have been handed down or which the mind has acquired during it's process of education, right? That's all there is. The known

    The known being the family, the job, the desire to survive, the economic position, cultural, the known. All that is within the field of the known, that is the field of knowledge. To that knowledge, I can take away or add from that knowledge.

    To investigate something further, the mind must be free of the know. If I want to investigate into the nature of Jupiter, I must put aside all the conclusions i have about jupiter.

    The known is the field of action, the field of my action. Please listen sir. The field. The mind, the brain, everything functions within the field of knowledge, right? To find out if there is something more or not, I must be free from this field.

    An animal that has been tied to a tree can never go very far. It is only when it is untied it can go very far. Similarly, The mind untied to knowledge can go very far or not further at all.

    Then what will free it? You've understood my question? If there is no outside agency to free it and an outside agency is the invention of the known as the God, the inner self, the outer self, the Brahman, you follow. It can invent any number of outside agencies.

    Then it says, is it possible to free myself from the known, right? Are you in that position?

    So illusion is the escape from the known, right? The known is not an illusion. I said illusion is when the mind finds that it cannot from the field of knowledge and tries to go beyond it. That is illusion.

    You are all in discomfort, right? So you say I can't put up with it. Why?

    I want to be free from sorrow? Is that possible? What is sorrow? I lose my brother John, or Raul, or whatever the name is, I lose my brother. Losing somebody who you think you love. I have lost somebody who I love a great deal so I am suffering. My son and I were united or together then i lost him. Separation, was I ever united with him? All the investment I made into my son is gone. I've lost my son. I remember him, how playful he was, how nice he was, how beautiful he was, memory. The memory remains and the person is gone. I have shed tears and I say to myself, I am suffering a great deal.

    And I say what is this thing that man goes through? I have collected a volume of all the reasons why I suffer, detachment, attachment, loss, companionship, feeling of loneliness, separation and so on and so on, and so on.

    I have compiled a book of explanations why I suffer, so I say to myself, Is the explanation the cause of suffering? Is the book the cause of suffering? or Is suffering entirely different?

    My consciousness is its content. If there is no content, there is no consciousness. So the content is consciousness, right? Do you see that?

    The consciousness of K is the book, is the furniture, is the identification with the house, his consciousness is his education, so on and so on. The content is consciousness. The content of the house is the house, the wall, the furniture, the space and so on is the house.

    Is there sorrow without the content? As long as there is content there must be sorrow. Consciousness is the content of contradiction and fragmentation. When the fragmentation is not, consciousness is something entirely different. When the content has no separation, this, this, this, this, then conflict ceases. Separation means conflict. So when there is fragmentation there must be conflict. It is this conflict that makes for consciousness.

    – J Krishnamurti

    Reply
LEAVE A COMMENT