Pupul Jayakar (PJ): In your last talk, you said we had never asked you the question: What is the relationship of a man who is searching, who is in a state of inner revolution, to the outside world—the world of economics, the world of politics, society as such? You said no one has ever asked you that question.
Krishnamurti (K): You want to discuss that? The question is: What is the relationship to society of a man who is attempting to bring about a psychological revolution; what is his relationship to business, to politics, to the whole structure of modern society? Would he have any relationship?
PJ: How can he escape relationship?
K: We’ll discuss this slowly. Let’s put it this way: What relationship has a man who is attempting to live a holistic life—that would be right—to society with all its fragmentation, with all its corruption, and so on? What is the relationship to society of a man who is attempting to live a holistic life? Would you put the question that way?
PJ: Yes.
K: I am asking whether he would have any relationship at all.
PJ: It is too. . .
K: I know. Too drastic a question immediately.
PJ: But to live is to be related.
K: To live is to be related; I know. But I am just asking. You are living a holistic life; you know what that means?
Sunanda Patwardhan (SP): That is a different question.
K: By Jove, you are all very quick, aren’t you? [Laughter]
PJ: I am searching for the holistic life.
K: No. You are attempting to live it.
SP: But I am not living that.
K: I never said that, so don’t jump on me before you’ve heard me completely. A man who is attempting to live a holistic life—we know what that means. Need I go into the word holistic? We all understand holistic.
PJ: Yes.
K: What relationship has he to society, society being fragmented, society being divided by politics, being based on religion, chicanery, corruption? All that is society. And what relationship has this man who is trying not to live a fragmented life to that? It is an important question because most of us are involved in it.
S. Balasundaram (SB): It’s very important.
K: Very important. Most of us are involved in this.
Questioner (Q): His relationship is that of an outcast.
K: We’ll find out whether he is an outcast or whether he takes society to his heart and all the rest of it. This is a discussion, a dialogue; we are not going to come to any conclusion and say, ‘Yes, this is the way he must live.’ We are trying to find out what is the relationship of a man who is attempting to live a holistic life to a society that lives and thrives in fragmentation. If he is not related at all, then what is he? Then what is his relationship to the fragmented world?
Q: I am adjusting and compromising with the environment.
K: Ah, you can’t compromise with corruption. You know, the word corruption comes from the old Latin word rumpere, which in Italian also means ‘to break up’. So how can a man who is trying to live a holistic life compromise with that?
Q: We are pushed around, so we compromise, and we too get corrupted because we are living in that society.
K: No. You have not understood the question. You are attempting to live a holistic life—you are attempting; you are not living it. You say this is the way to live. And what is your relationship to society? To be pushed around, to be corrupted?
Q: Is it that of a rebel?
K: Do you rebel against society?
Q: We try to.
K: No, not have to. This becomes a guesswork then, a game we are playing. You know what that word holistic means? Sane, healthy, holy, a life that is whole, complete, not fragmented, not broken up. If a man is attempting to live that, what is his relationship to society which is corrupt, which is broken up? You know what is happening in society. What is his relationship to it? Discuss it, sir.
PJ: Is he separate from that society?
K: Isn’t he?
PJ: Is he?
K: I am asking, I am exploring.
PJ: I am asking whether this individual, however much he may be seeking, is separate from society.
SP: I feel he is part of that society, and yet because of this feeling of attempting. . .
PJ: But he must first see that he is that society. So in posing that question we must first take into account the fact that he is that society.
Achyut Patwardhan (AP): I would not agree to that proposition that he is a part of that society. I feel that the moment he has said that his attempt is to live a holistic life, he has stepped out. He says he doesn’t want to be dragged by this stream. About this he is not in two minds. The question must start with: is he still in two minds? Would he like to drift comfortably with the society, or is he a no-sayer? He must clearly be a no-sayer before he can say he is attempting to live a holistic life. His no-saying is not a choice: it is something over which he has no control; it has come to him, and he has no choice. We must begin from there.
PJ: Can you begin from a state of no-saying? If you say you are not part of society, then you are holistic. The very fact that you are searching indicates that you are in fragments, that you feel these fragments are destructive, and so you seek a way that is not fragmentary. But because you are fragmentary, you are society.
SP: And yet there is something which is awakened in you about the fragment. You can’t equate a person who is totally. . .
Q: I think he feels himself a stranger.
K: A stranger? No. Achyutji said he is a no-sayer. Right?
AP: Yes.
K: I question that. I want to find out. Do you say no, or are you totally indifferent to it?
AP: The first act is of no-saying; the indifference doesn’t come easily.
K: Let’s go slowly. Do you turn your back on it, do you deny it, do you say no? Or do you see what it is, do you see it as it is?
AP: I do.
K: You see it actually, as it is; therefore you are not saying yes or no: you’re seeing it.
AP: No. If you are attempting to live a holistic life, the first thing that happens is that you see the total futility of compromising between that and this; it has to end immediately. So the no-saying is a decision which makes you say, ‘I can never be a part of that.’
K: You are making a most categorical statement. I am sorry. It is not a discussion if you say no.
AP: It may even be a wrong statement. Between the no-saying and the attitude you stated as the possible alternative, it takes a little time for a person to grasp. . .
K: Ah, you’re going off.
AP: No, sir. There is a Buddhist word upekkha. It is one of the states of love, one of the four aspects of love. Now, one doesn’t come upon it easily because love is not something you come upon easily. But the mind can say, that plant cannot grow in this soil.
K: Are you saying that a man who is attempting to live a holistic life renounces? When you say no, it’s a form of renunciation.
AP: No. I say the moment I know that this road will never lead me where I want to go, I stop.
K: Are you thinking in terms of renunciation? Is the man who is trying to live a holistic life renouncing by saying no?
SP: Here I would like to ask: when we say no to society, what is this no? Is to the total society?
K: That’s what I am asking. I think that to say no in itself is coming to a conclusion.
Q: Doesn’t a man who sees very clearly what is going on in society have the greatest responsibility of telling other people what he sees?
K: I understand that. But what is his relationship, which is different from responsibility—for the moment? I am trying to live a holistic life. I don’t quite know the whole meaning of a holistic life. I’ve heard this man [K] talk about it a great deal, and I say, ‘Yes, that’s the way to live.’ But I don’t capture the full depth and significance of a holistic life. I am involved in it. And what is my relationship to society, to the people around me?
Q: You are indifferent to it.
K: Oh no, not indifferent. I am living a holistic life. I am married; what’s my relationship to my wife? Being indifferent to her? Kicking her around?
SB: The question is: should I say no, should I renounce?
K: That’s what I am asking you.
SB: I have no answer.
K: I am asking, what is your relationship to society, which is your authority, and all the rest of it? Is it an act of renunciation? Or do you see the thing very clearly for what it is and you don’t touch it?
PJ: You are going too fast.
K: I know.
PJ: I think we are confused at the very beginning.
AP: I want to clarify what I said about my no-saying. I say this no-saying must be born out of love.
K: You are going too fast. You see, you are already conditioned by the Buddhist. . .
AP: No, I leave Buddhism.
K: Ah no. You’re already conditioned by the Buddhist idea, and you are introducing that idea into this. I am not; I know nothing about that. All I want to do is to live a holistic life, and I ask, what is my relationship to the rest of the world?
AP: There are two types of no-sayers.
K: No! Please just answer my question. Don’t go off into ‘two types’.
SB: Put it this way: there is actually a man who says he should live this way; what’s he to do?
K: That’s what I am asking.
Q: He is split like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. On the one side he is thinking of going away; on the other side he is pulled by society.
K: I won’t call him Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. [Laughter]
SB: Seriously, what does one do?
K: This is really a very complex question; we are trying to pass it off very quickly. May I ask, what is implied in a holistic life? What is implied in that?
Q: No fragmentation.
K: Which means what? What does it mean to live a life that is not fragmented? The fact is we are fragmented. Are you trying to renounce fragmentation? Are you trying to integrate fragmentation? Or, are you looking at the picture of yourself as being fragmented? Which is it?
SP: As it is, by this question, we have discarded the question of inquiry into such a man’s relationship to society.
K: I am into that; I haven’t discarded it. First I must find out what it means to live a holistic life. He says, ‘My life is fragmented.’ We all know that. And when he says he realises that he is fragmented, how does he realise it? Is it an intellectual realisation or an actual realisation? Is the realisation separate from him or he is the realisation? All that is implied.
AP: But that realisation is not an abstraction. It has to be through several acts of negating fragmentation.
K: No. How do you realise a thing? For example, I realise I don’t love. I realise it. What does that ‘I realise’ mean? The word realise comes from the word reality. Reality means ‘thing’. The word reality comes from the word res, which means ‘a thing’. Now, do I realise that I live a fragmented life, just as I observe a thing? Is it an actual observation, or an abstraction and the observation of that abstraction?
PJ: I think the question is wrong, if I may say so. I’d put it as: is there such a thing as trying to live a holistic life?
K: You are using the word trying because I said it. [Laughs] I don’t try to love you: I either love you or don’t love you.
SP: So there are only two categories. Then you are stating that, on the one hand, there is the holistic person and, on the other, the fragmented person; that’s all. I don’t think that’s a reality at all.
K: I would put quite differently the question Pupul would like to put: What is the relationship of a man who is living holistically to the world which is not?
SP: That’s different.
PJ: If I may elaborate: a person who is leading a holistic life does not even want to question his relationship to society. The fact of his existence he lives, but there are people who. . .
K: Ah, that’s quite a different question.
PJ: There are people who see momentarily the fragmentary nature of their living and yet maintain that this fragmentary nature is a reflection of the fragmentary nature of society. So when they talk of their relationship to society, it is in a sense one fragment establishing a relationship with another. There are certain aspects of society which even a person who is not trying to live a holistic life may understand and negate.
K: I understand all that.
PJ: So I am not talking of the negation of those aspects of society that are obviously detrimental. But when one talks of relationship with society and negating society, is it a piecemeal thing?
K: No.
PJ: Can I say I accept this and reject that?
K: That’s what Achyutji was saying—negating bit by bit by bit.
AP: I negate only what I see. To me it is like this. . .
K: Not to you—that’s an opinion.
AP: It’s just a form of expression.
K: Ah, be careful.
AP: What I mean is that you have to see a fact; only then can it be negated; otherwise you are merely abstracting.
K: Why should I negate a cobra? I see it is dangerous, it’s finished. I don’t negate it.
AP: I feel a little baffled by the cobra because it is a physical thing, but what I am saying is psychological.
K: No. I see corruption as a danger, and it is finished.
SB: You are saying that the man leading a holistic life is different. The man living in fragments doesn’t even know it. But the vast majority of us, or at least those of us who have heard or given their time to this, see this. Probably they have a little more than seen, they have smelt the perfume. What happens to them, what is their relationship?
K: That’s what Pupulji is asking.
SB: But you seem to deny this. You say if you have seen it, it’s finished.
K: No. I am denying only what Achyutji says—negating bit by bit.
SB: I understand, because if you negate a bit of this fragment, you have negated the whole—really, if you have done it.
K: Of course.
SB: Because the bit is the whole.
K: So let’s start again.
SB: This is a real problem.
K: A real problem. I know. Look, I am an ordinary man living in a fragmented world. My life is fragmented. I hear K, and he talks of a holistic life, and it appeals to me. I see that’s the way to live. Now, how am I to move away from the fragmented life into that, not as a matter of process? Is there a way of moving out of this fragmentary life into a holistic life? Would that question be right?
AP: May I repeat? I know that death is a fact and that any fragmentary response to death is meaningless. I see it is easy to wipe it away. But then I see the death of a relationship. The death of a relationship is also a form of death, but, qualitatively, negating it is not the same. It’s not so simple to wipe it away because it is very deeply psychological.
K: You are going off. I want you to stick to one thing. I’ve heard K talk about the holistic life. I see the importance of it, I have caught the perfume of it by listening to him, and I say, ‘By Jove, that’s the way to live. How am I to move away—not how—what have I to do to move away from this?’ Wait, wait, I am not so dumb as you think I look. [Laughter] Then what is my relationship to society? That’s the first.
Q: I also see that wanting the holistic life cannot do that.
K: Of course. The moment you want it, you are back again in fragmentation.
Q: Therefore I stay with what I am.
K: Yes.
Q: For example, I see very clearly that education as we have it today is completely wrong. Now I don’t say I’ll leave education alone. I say I see it, and therefore I can change it.
K: I work at it.
Q: I work at it. And could that be my relationship to society?
PJ: You see, this takes us to a field where it becomes a little abstract because the moment you take education, it’s already outside you. There are certain aspects of society that are you.
K: You are society.
PJ: Let’s not get away from it. That is why I say that the question is either being wrongly put or is not clearly revealing itself. Then we ask ourselves the question all the time: ‘What is my relationship to society? Am I right in my actions?’ We have the government on the one hand and personal relationships on the other. The whole nature of that is society. I mean, the nature of attachment, the nature of anything related to, is society.
K: Then why bring in the holistic life at all? I am society; my relationship is conditioned by the culture, by the society in which I am; therefore I am that. Let’s forget the holistic life.
PJ: Can one put oneself apart from it? You see, one does attempt to put oneself apart from it. There is corruption; one doesn’t say one is part of the corruption.
K: That’s just it. I have never put myself apart from society. I have said I am society.
PJ: But we don’t say that.
K: But I have said that a million times.
PJ: You may have said that.
K: Yes, I have said it. I am society, I am the world, I am everything, I am that, I am the history of mankind.
SB: It is a bridge I have really not crossed. How can I insist?
K: But she says we separate ourselves from society.
PJ: We do.
K: You do.
SP: This is not a full statement. We separate ourselves in parts; we don’t belong to certain aspects.
PJ: That’s exactly what I am saying.
K: Could we begin—not by saying—with the fact that I am society? Could we begin with that?
SB: Many of us may have put it in various ways. We may be very confused in the way we have put it, but you know the nature of the problem.
K: What is the problem?
PJ: The problem is society, as we see it, is a whole in a different sense: it contains the good, the bad, everything.
K: All the muck. You are that.
PJ: No. The individual, seeing that, separates the good from the immoral.
K: Identifies with the good.
PJ: And then this has to be negated. I am saying this is the picture. This society has also love in it.
SB: In its own way.
K: The mucky way.
PJ: It has also goodness in it.
Q: I don’t see society out there and I over here. What I see in society is somewhere in me. I am not dealing with something out there: I am dealing with something which is right here. Whether it is corruption or love, all that is happening within me. When you start taking sides with the good or the bad or the indifferent out there, you can’t deal with it at all.
PJ: The actual picture is that we separate ourselves.
K: That means you haven’t logically, reasonably, sanely worked it out. I am society. Whatever that society is, I am that. If you once acknowledge that as a fact, not as a theory, then we can proceed. I am that society, with all its corruption, with all its fragmentation, everything. I have created this stuff.
Q: And I keep on creating it every moment.
K: Yes, I’ve created it. So if I realise the basic truth that I am society, then where is the question of my relationship to society?
116 Man is not the measure
PJ: Why then did you in your talk ask that question at all?
K: Which?
PJ: You asked: why is it that none of you have asked what is the relationship of society. . .
K: I asked it because they haven’t realised this fact that I am society, I am the world, I am the history of mankind. It means that.
Q: Are you then redefining this thing as one’s relationship with oneself?
K: No. I am the world. That’s what Pupulji is trying to clarify. Which is, if you are the world, the world being society, everything, then where is my relationship to society? I am that.
AP: If we have to move from facts, I would suggest that the basic realisation with society in the present context is total alienation.
K: No!
AP: I feel I am totally alienated from this society.
K: You are society.
SP: After listening to all our questions, you have come back to a position just now of saying you are society, the total society, the history of man. So I ask, what are you trying to say when we started the question of what is our relationship to society?
K: Which may be a wrong question.
SP: That is, I look at my relationship to society in fragments, and you are saying, ‘Don’t look at your relationship to society in fragments but look at it in toto.’
K: No, no!
SP: Then what is the meaning of this? When I say I am the total man, it becomes an abstraction.
K: No, it is not an abstraction. Aren’t you society?
SP: I am society.
K: Go bit by bit. Aren’t you the society which is corrupt, aren’t you the society which is vulgar?
SP: In a general way, but it doesn’t clear the fog.
K: Actually, not generally.
SP: Actually I don’t see myself as a corrupt person, I don’t see myself as a dishonest person. I may have ambition, I may have the capacity to get hurt. I am in the zone of society, but I am not the totality of it.
SB: What he is saying may be that the theme is the same. It’s a variation of the theme between me and you, he and me; it is the same theme.
Q: There is a dilemma that appears to arise out of the statement that I am society or you are society. Does that mean we are denying the possibility of individual evolution until the sum total of society evolves?
K: No sir, no sir. [Laughs]
Q: I think it would be nice to hear you uninterrupted for a change. Everyone has been heard uninterrupted in this room, sir, except you. [Laughter] So it will be nice to hear you uninterrupted for a while.
K: Pupulji asked: a man who is trying to live a holistic life, what is his relationship to society? We began with that question. As we went along, we gradually found that it is a wrong question, because you are society. Not that you are different from society and therefore you ask what your relationship to society is. You are society. You may not be corrupt, but you have other factors that are the factors of society. I may not lie, but I may be dishonest to myself in a different direction and so on. So I am society. Do I realise that fact? If I realise it, I will not ask what my relationship to society is, because I am that.
Q: The moment you realise the nature of your fragmentation and the fragmentation in society, is it that the fragmentation ends?
K: Nothing ends, nothing ends. The fact is simple; it’s simple, isn’t it? Do you actually realise that your whole consciousness is put together as society? Maybe bits of it are different, but your consciousness as a whole is society.
Q: But when you realise this, when you actually observe yourself as the corrupt society, and you become aware of the corruption, don’t you also become aware of a space within yourself?
K: No, no. You see, the spirit is not different from society.
Q: ‘Actually realise’—what does that mean?
K: It means you are not separate from society.
Q: I see that.
K: Either it is so or it is not so. Not you see it. It means to realise, to comprehend, to totally understand it, to be involved in it.
SB: Is it that the mind has the capacity to extrapolate and win over rather than realise? This happens time and again.
K: Look, the fact is simple. Do I realise I’ve a toothache?
PJ: But a toothache is very different.
K: Ah, I don’t have to say, ‘I realise I’ve a toothache’; I damn well know I’ve a toothache. In the same way, do I see the fact that I am society?
PJ: Look at the implications of that fact.
K: I am going to.
PJ: Let’s go into the implications of that fact. If I really see this, then the total sin of mankind I take on my head.
K: What?
PJ: I am the total sin of mankind.
K: I’ve said that. Umpteen times.
Q: But still the question remains. Let’s just take the example of Nazi Germany. I live in that society, I see that I am society, but now what’s my action in such a society? I cannot just sit back and say, ‘Well, I am that society.’ I have to do something.
K: We are going to do something, but first I must realise, or see, or observe the fact that I am society— not an idea, not a conclusion, not an abstraction.
SB: We are stuck with it.
AP: The fact we see is duality, which I expressed as alienation. Duality is a fact for us. You say, ‘I am society’ is the fact.
K: Is that a fact?
AP: I say it is not.
K: Ah, then we are playing games.
AP: Alienation is a fact; that’s what I said. Can we move from that fact to the other?
K: No!
Q: Can we inquire into the nature of realisation? Is realisation within the boundaries of thought or not?
K: Isn’t that a fact? Do you see yourself as the whole content of society?
Q: Yes.
K: That’s all. Start with that.
PJ: If you realise that, then it’s over.
K: No. I am going to show you something.
PJ: Forgive me for asking: how do you see that?
K: I am coming to that.
PJ: You can’t say you have seen it without saying how you see it.
K: When you say I realise I am society—as factual as that [Pointing to some object]—what do you mean by that? Are you observing in yourself without the observer? If the observer is, then the whole problem arises.
Q: Forgive me for repeating the same thing, but a lot of us mistake our thoughts for realisation, our theories for realisation.
K: Oh no. You say, ‘I realise, I see that.’ You’ve accepted it as a fact. Why don’t you accept as a fact that you are society? Fact!
Q: It’s still difficult to accept it.
K: Not accept.
Q: Probably someone hates me, I don’t hate him. I can’t accept his hatred as my own. Somebody is envious of me, I am not envious of him. I can’t accept his envy as my own. That’s the problem.
K: Sir, don’t you suffer? I am fed up with repeating this stuff.
PJ: Let me go into one more thing. Society is too big an abstraction.
K: No!
PJ: That’s what I was going to say; it is.
K: It is not an abstraction. That poor man in the street is me.
PJ: Let’s discuss it. When you use the word society, the mind as such cannot hold that totality.
SB: May I put it slightly differently? K has explained this in five thousand different ways.
K: Yes, sir.
SB: Why the hell doesn’t this fellow realise it? [Laughter]
K: Quite right; that’s the whole point. Because we think we are different from society. We like to think we are different from society. It gives us more importance, makes us feel a little more secure, gives us a sense of vitality, separation, and we are used to that.
SB: So, would you say we like to continue as part of society in a way?
K: No. But you’ve separated yourself, and therefore you say, ‘Well, I am different from society, I’ll help society.’
PJ: So let’s try one more thing. Instead of taking up this question, could we come back to Achyutji’s position.
K: What is that?
PJ: I say the mind cannot comprehend the totality of this thing. Now, the mind can see certain facts of this thing we call society.
K: Careful. You are looking at society fragmentarily.
PJ: But please see it.
K: You don’t see society as a whole and say, ‘I am that’ and then work out the details.
PJ: If I do not see, what is to be done?
K: I am coming to that.
PJ: If I may say so, you are not coming to that. If I haven’t seen for thirty years that society is me, what is it that is going to open my eyes to see that?
K: Is that what your question is?
SB: The problem is we don’t see the totality of this.
PJ: It is an abstraction.
SB: It is too vast.
K: No!
PJ: It’s like seeing the history of the whole human race at one glance.
SB: If one realises one thing, it’s the realisation of the whole.
PJ: That’s what I am trying to communicate.
SB: Realise the tip of the iceberg.
K: If I may point out, you are discussing it, having a dialogue, intellectually.
SB: No, sir.
K: Yes, sir. I’ll show you how. What is your problem? That you don’t see society, which is you, as a whole. Is that it?
SB: ‘See’ being ‘realise’.
K: I said that. See, realise, comprehend, aware of, all that. You say you don’t see the whole of society as you. When you say the ‘whole’, what do you mean by that word? Whole of society—what do you mean by that? Corruption, this, this, this?
SB: You are asking: when you say ‘whole’, is it all the fragments put together that you don’t see?
K: No. I am asking whether you see it as a whole, or the particulars of that picture.
PJ: It’s not seeing the whole.
K: That’s my point.
SB: The problem is the seeing.
PJ: The whole is not in the nature of what is seen.
K: Now we are going off to something else.
Q: The moment I see I am the society, it brings up so many fragments.
K: Everything. I don’t want to particularise. I ask: when you say ‘I am society’, what does it mean? Do you mean the details, the particulars, the fragments, or do you see the whole of it? Like looking at a map—do you see the whole map? You will not see the whole map if you have a direction; if you are concentrated on going from here to that village, then you don’t see the whole map. So when you have no direction, you see the whole. What do you say to that? Let’s put it differently. Do you see yourself apart from society, in fragments? What do you say to that? Do you see yourself in fragments, or do you see yourself as a whole?
PJ: I would say, neither.
K: What do you mean by ‘neither’?
PJ: When you see, you don’t differentiate it as the fragment or the whole.
K: You see. When you see, you see—what? A fragment? Or do you see the fragment which is in the whole?
PJ: In the actual process of seeing, there isn’t this division between the fragment and the whole.
K: Yes. So, what happens? How do you look at it? When you say, ‘I am looking at myself, studying myself, knowing myself, understanding myself ‘, how do you look at yourself?
Q: I am like a man swimming in the river: I cannot see the whole river; I see only a particular relationship in life. Somebody brings me tea, I go to the office, there are many situations, and I see them one by one. Could we begin from there, because that seems to be our problem?
K: Is it that we see one by one? Going to the office, coming back, your wife, and so on—is that all fragmented? Do you look at your life that way? Don’t accept what I am saying or deny it. Just see: is that the way you function?
Q: That is how the brain seems to be functioning.
K: I question it. I may be wrong, but I question it; it means I am inquiring. I question whether you look at your life bit by bit—going to the office, coming back to your wife, having sex, children, and so on.
PJ: If I think it over, then what you say is true—the thinking over what I did this morning.
K: Ah, that is quite a different matter.
PJ: If we could go into the nature of seeing. . .
K: That’s what I would like to go into.
SB: I think the crux of the problem is not the fragment or the whole, but the nature of seeing.
K: So, can we go into that? I see myself in a mirror when I shave, or comb my hair; I see myself going to the office. I see all that. When I say I see myself, what is that seeing? What is it I am seeing?
PJ: That’s really the crux.
K: What is it I am seeing? (I see the form in the mirror; we are not talking of that.) We are talking about seeing the psychological structure of our whole life. How do I look at my whole psychological structure— sorrow, sex, pleasure, fear, association, myself saying I am society, I am not society, all that? How do I look at it? Do I look at it as an entity separate from all that?
Q: Separate from what?
K: All that which I have observed, which is anxiety, fear, society, corruption. Do I say I am not that?
PJ: Looking in itself is a pure thing. There is a purity and innocence in it.
K: No, there isn’t purity and innocence. I see it.
PJ: There is. Why do you say no?
K: Because, first of all, we haven’t yet understood what it means to observe. How do I observe myself? Come on, be simple about it; why complicate it? How do I see myself? Is myself different from the observer?
PJ: Are you asking me?
K: I am asking. You see me with your eyes, the nerves transmits it to the brain, and the brain says, ‘Yes, I know that man, he is sitting there, he is this, this, this.’ That’s one part of seeing. What is the other part? Do you see me as I am or through the image you have built about me?
Q: We’ve images; we can’t help it.
K: It’s not whether you can help it or not. What is the fact? Do you see me through an image you have built about me?
Q: Yes, through the image.
K: That’s a fact. Is that seeing me? No. Then what? You have no image then.
Q: There’s nothing left.
K: No.
SP: Going back to the question of how I see consciousness as a whole, I say I see two or three states. One is, I do not see all the contents of consciousness totally; I see the nature of consciousness through a content. The second is: I as separate from the content operating on the content is also another factual state of consciousness. That is also seeing, this is also seeing. Then the question is asked whether I see myself as a whole. Was that the question?
K: No, no. In what manner is your perception of yourself?
SP: So, what is the self which is perceiving it? Who perceives what? Where is the self?
K: You are going off. Please don’t get too complicated; be simple. Do you see yourself separate from your greed? Do you see yourself separate as greed being over there and you not being greed?
SP: This is something one has observed: greed comes, ends, and afterwards there is separation. We don’t see it at the moment of greed.
K: When you are greedy, at the moment you don’t understand, but later on when the fact comes in you say, ‘I am greedy, I was greedy.’ Is that ‘I’ separate from greed?
SP: One can see that it is not separate.
K: Ah, not ‘see’: it’s a fact.
SP: I say simply it’s a fact.
K: Which means you are still separating yourself from greed, you are still acting on greed when you say, ‘I am that, I am greed.’
SP: There is separation.
K: No. There is no separation.
SP: Then ‘I am greed’ is only a linguistic expression.
K: You haven’t understood what I am talking about. Look, I am greedy. At the moment of greed, there is neither ‘I’ nor anything else: there is just that reaction. A second later thought comes in and says, ‘I was greedy.’ Is that ‘I’ separate from greed? No. What do you say?
SP: No.
K: So you are greed. Then what happens? Then what happens is a different matter. But do you realise, do you see, that you are not separate from your reactions? Your reactions are you.
SP: That’s all right. It can be done with reference to one, but when you say that is the entirety of it, it’s a different problem.
K: You are all too clever. If you see that as an actual fact, not as a theory—that is, you are not separate from that, you are that—then what takes place? You haven’t answered that question; answer it. I am greedy. I know that at the moment of greed nothing exists but greed—that feeling, that sensation, that reaction. Then later on comes the ‘I’ thought, the thought that says, ‘By Jove, I have been greedy.’ When I say that, I have already separated myself from greed. Now don’t say, ‘Yes, I am greed.’ Then the next step: what happens when I am greed? I am greed, I am observing myself. This is the observation of myself who is society.
Q: If he wants to lead a holistic life, he will immediately say, ‘I won’t be greedy anymore.’ If he directly sees that he is greedy, greed ceases.
K: You haven’t answered my question: when I am that, what takes place?
PJ: Sir, may I ask you this question? You have been putting it this way for many, many, years.
K: Millennia. [Laughter]
PJ: There is greed. The next moment the reaction is ‘I should not be greedy.’
K: Yes, all the rest of it.
PJ: If there is alertness in observation, there is an observation, not that ‘I am the greed’, but on the statement ‘I should not be greedy.’
K: Yes.
PJ: And the very observation of that statement, because there is seeing, dissolves the nature of that.
K: Which is what? What are you saying?
PJ: So this question that I am greed never comes up.
K: But what has happened? Look, you are greedy. The reaction to it, you say, is that you should not be greedy. So, what have you done?
PJ: I have moved away.
K: No, much more significant. What have you done actually?
PJ: I am greedy, and I say I should not be greedy.
K: What have you done there? Don’t reply yet; just hold a minute.
PJ: I see something in this.
K: Yes, that’s it. What have you done? You have responded according to your tradition, according to your habit, according to your conditioning. So, what have you done? You have created a division between what is and what is not. You have created a division, so there is conflict there.
PJ: Yes. There is conflict there.
K: Which is what? When you see, when you remain only with the fact—and not you should not be greedy—you eliminate altogether the division and the wastage of energy.
PJ: But, for that, alertness precedes the greed; in that, greed does not arise.
SP: That state of greed will not arise if there is alertness.
K: No, no. You are complicating it.
PJ: No, I am not complicating it.
K: I see a car, I see something beautiful. I like to have it—greed—and instinctively my conditioning says, ‘Don’t be greedy.’
PJ: That’s one.
K: I am taking that one. That is the response of my conditioning to tradition which says ‘Don’t’. So I have created the division, and the division means conflict, which means wastage of energy. That’s all. I’ve wasted energy, right?
PJ: Yes.
K: If I don’t waste energy, what takes place?
PJ: Here is where I come with tears. At what instant do I not waste energy?
K: When you don’t react.
PJ: Please see my difficulty. The observation is a reaction from my conditioning.
K: Yes.
PJ: I have no control on it.
K: Yes.
PJ: For the reaction, for the conditioning not to emerge with the awakening of anger, there must be a simultaneous awakening of intelligence.
K: Of attention. When you are angry, be tremendously aware that you are angry. Don’t go off into saying, ‘I mustn’t be angry.’
Q: Has one a choice about it? You are angry, and you are not aware. Is there a choice, is there an effort involved in being aware, becoming aware?
K: I am afraid you have not quite understood.
PJ: We would like to go into it a little more.
K: Of course.
PJ: Can it ever happen—what you are saying just now?
K: That is the fun of awareness.
PJ: As I understand it, there are only two stages: a state of awareness when one meets the crisis, when no conditioning arises, when no response takes place.
K: Remain there.
PJ: But for anger and intelligence to arise simultaneously is not possible.
K: I am fully aware of what you say. I say you are putting a wrong question, and therefore you are making it impossible for yourself. First see what happens—anger-must not be angry. That reaction is your traditional, conditioned response. Do you see that? Are you aware of it? Do you see what is implied in it? Habit, repetition, a mechanical response, which you are accustomed to. Anger-no anger-don’t be angry—instantly. If you do that, there is wastage of energy because you have created a non-fact, which is that you should not be angry. It is a non-fact. The fact is only anger. Remain with it, hold it.
Q: You say, ‘Remain with it’, but thought is so cunning that the next second it comes in again.
K: I am angry. My response is, ‘Don’t be angry’, because my parents have told me, my grandparents have told me, society has told me, culture has told me. That’s my tradition, that’s my background. Do I see that? The mechanical response to a fact—which is a non-fact—do you see that? Do you actually see this process? If you do, then what takes place? You never meet that point. You are always saying, ‘Yes, I am caught there, what shall I do?’ I see that nice car—sensation, thought, desire, image of me sitting in the car, driving it, power, position, all the rest of it. That is the traditional movement of sensation. Now, see the car, allow the sensation, and hold it, remain there; why should this movement go on?
Q: In other words, there should be a continuous state of observation.
K: Not continuous. Again, that means time. That means, be attentive when it’s necessary and let go. To say, ‘I must be attentive all the time’, is a tremendous strain on you. [Laughs] It’s a tremendous desire that says, ‘I must be attentive all the time.’ I am attentive when I see the nice, polished car, and there is the sensation. That’s it. Hold there. Don’t let thought come in with its tricks. It’s as simple as that.
Q: During that attention, is there an observer in there?
K: In attention there isn’t.
Q: So, what is working in the mind that is attentive?
K: Don’t go off to something else. I see the beastly car—I am fed up with that car. [Laughter] I see a beautiful woman. The instinctual response is the whole movement of desire, sensation. That is the mechanistic movement of tradition, of habit. Now I see, realise, how my brain is always functioning in habit. So I say, ‘By Jove, how very interesting. I am going to play, there must be a game in this.’ I watch. I see the beautiful woman—sensation. Why should the whole thing go on? Basta. [Laughs]
PJ: So we come back to the original question: what is the relationship of a person who is seeking a holistic life to society?
K: What is the relationship of a man who realises he is society and who realising it says there is no society different from me? I am that, right? So where does the relationship begin? I am that.
PJ: So it is really that non-action is action.
K: No, be careful. I am society. There is no doubt about it: I am that. That, to me at least, is as factual as this thing. [Taps the microphone] It is not a theory, it is not a concept, it is not a conclusion, it is not an ideal, it is not a verbal statement. It is a factual statement.
Q: May I restate the question of evolution? Is it possible then to evolve individually without the sum total of society evolving?
K: No. If I am society, there is no individual. What is an individual? The bank account? The form? The name? The superficial characteristics?
Q: No. This state of awareness.
K: No. If I am society, where is the individual? The individual is the form, the name, the bank account, my house, my property, all that.
Q: So, are you denying evolution?
K: In a sense, yes. Evolution means to evolve, to grow, to proceed. We have evolved from the great apes to what we are. That has taken millennia. Biologically, we can’t change any more: we can’t grow a third eye or a fourth arm—except the gods, the Hindu gods. So biologically we can’t evolve any more. Apparently that’s a fact. Psychologically, we have not evolved at all. Would you see that? Because, we are just what we were at the beginning. So, will time help us to evolve psychologically? It has not helped us to evolve for the last millennia or two millennia or whatever it is. Time has not helped us, therefore time is out.
Q: But surely there has been some spiritual evolution from the state of the monkey?
K: A little. I won’t call it spiritual. There is certainly a little more cunning, a little more adapting ourselves to environment. Technologically, we have advanced tremendously.
Q: I am not talking technologically.
K: In the other, we have hardly advanced.
Q: But even if there is a little. . .
K: I question it. I believe a great many scientists met to consider what is progress, whether man has progressed at all. They came to the conclusion—hardly. They question it; they don’t say yes or no. They question whether man has evolved at all. Because we are fighting each other, we are doing exactly the same thing we have done—in Babylon. Evolution implies time. Time has not changed man.
Q: Technologically?
K: Technologically, yes.
Q: Not psychologically, perhaps spiritually.
K: That is spiritual—if there is no psychological change, how can you talk of a spiritual change? Man is still as he was a million years ago—greedy, envious, battling each other, fighting one another, ‘mine’ and ‘yours’ and all the rest of it. It has taken a million years, and we are still at that. Perhaps we put on kid gloves now instead of iron. So if time has not helped him to change radically, give him another millennia, he won’t change either.
Q: We don’t know that.
K: So time is not the means of ending. That’s a different matter. Pupulji asked: What is the relationship of a man who is trying to live a holistic life to society? I said, that’s a wrong question. It’s a wrong question because he is society. And until that is completely, totally, deeply felt, realised, every other question is meaningless. There is much more fun in this. That is, what happens when I realise I am society? What is my relationship, what is my action with regard to the rest of the world? Therefore what is action?