Small Group Discussion, Paris, 29 May 1965
Krishnamurti: Will somebody start the ball rolling? E*n anglais ou en français*, *je ne sais pas.* [In English or in French, I do not know.]
Questioner: Is it possible to put the question in French and answer in English?
K: Yes sir. Yes sir.
Q: *L’autre jour vous avez parlé de la concentration et de l’attention. Vous avez dit l’attention c’est tout à fait différent de la concentration. Or dans la vie quand on travail il est certain que l’on doit être concentré le plus souvent possible pour faire bien son travail. La question que je voulais vous poser : est-il possible d’être attentif tout en étant concentré? Est-ce que concentration implique exclusion ?* [The other day you talked about concentration and attention. You said attention is completely different from concentration. But in life, when we work, it is certain that we have to concentrate as often as possible to do our work well. The question I wanted to ask you: is it possible to be attentive while concentrating? Does concentration mean exclusion?
K: Sir, how do you learn when you are working? *(Inaudible). On n’entend pas ?* [You are not hearing?]
Q: *Non. On n’entend rien.* [No, we can’t hear anything.]
Q: *Fermer la fenêtre ça vaut mieux. Il y a trop de bruit dehors.* [It is better to close the window. There is too much noise outside.]
K: Even when one is working, how does one learn about the work you are doing? By concentration? I do not know if you have read that they are experimenting in America, I believe, in some factories, that the worker learns as he goes on working. He doesn’t learn first and then work but as he is working he learns and they find that the worker produces much more, because he’s more interested in doing something from which he’s learning, not doing something automatically. Now, when you are doing work is it concentration only or you’re also learning from what you’re doing? If you’re doing something repetitively, automatically, then you don’t even have to have concentration, you just repeat.
Q: Without concentration.
K: You can think about something else, carry on; but if you are learning from the work — you know what I mean by *learning*?
Q: Yes, yes; I think…
K: Then if you’re learning from the work, doing, then you are aware of many things involved in that, not just one act.
Q: Yes. Yes, because it’s always interrupted.
K: Interrupted.
Q: Yes, that’s the fact; but sometimes you are concentrated without interruption and…
K: So, so when you are talking about concentration, we mean generally, don’t we, an exclusive process, a resistance to every other activity of thought and thought concentrating on that one thing?
Q: Not a natural concentration in work.
K: Yes.
Q: It’s not the same.
K: Not the same.
Q: All right.
K: You see the difference?
Q: I see the difference. And the natural concentrations are in nowhere, in fact.
K: No, no; therefore I can be aware of what is in the room, learn from what is happening, and yet carry on with my work; and therefore my work becomes much more alive, not automatic, not dreary, not routine.
(Pause)
So the question really is: how does one learn? Through concentration or through a great deal of attention? The two being different.
Q: Yes.
K: If we say concentration is attention, then we have to analyse those two words. *Est-ce que tout le monde parle anglais ici*? [Does everybody speak English here ?]
Q: *Ils comprennent mais ils peuvent parler français.* [They understand but they can speak [prefer to speak] in French.]
Q: Another question that I have: the other day you speak about order and disorder…
K: Let’s finish this, sir; all right… (inaudible) (Laughs)
(Laughter)
Q: (Inaudible)
K: When does one learn? There are two things involved with learning, aren’t there? Either learning is merely an additive process and therefore merely like a machine repeating…
Q: But it is possible to be only repetitive… (inaudible)
K: Wait sir; I’m just… Let’s inquire into it. (Inaudible) You said concentration and attention; does one learn through concentration, in the sense, using that word to mean exclusion, forcing thought to be concentrated on one thing; does one learn that way? Learn, in the sense, a movement, an active present movement in which you are discovering, going, moving. I don’t know if it has… I mean, if you have thought about it; I don’t know if you are interested in it.
Q: Yes, I am interested, of course; but… So, to take another… — I think it’s difficult to understand exactly what you mean; I’m sorry if my thinking is… — if you take the example of a surgeon who’s operating a sick body on a place, on a certain moment he’s completely taken by his job and he’s obliged to do, every second, gestures precise…
K: Precise; but he’s learning, he is not just doing it automatically.
Q: No, it is not automatically but he is concentrated; he is not…
K: I mean… Yes.
Q: He’s concentrated on what he’s doing.
K: Yes, but he’s also aware of what the anaesthetist is saying…
Q: Yes.
K: …the heartbeat; he’s aware of all the colleagues round him; he’s taking the whole thing, not just one thing. I mean, if he was not learning — in quotes — but merely operating, then he’s concentrated, tremendously; but if he’s learning from the operation, he’s watching everything then. Sir, look; put it round… — leave the doctors alone — if you were learning about yourself, how would you proceed?
Q: To be… (inaudible), to be open.
K: Which means what?
Q: Which means…
K: You are a living thing.
Q: Yes.
K: All kinds of thoughts, feelings and reactions are going on all the time.
Q: All the time.
K: All… It’s a living thing, not just a static thing; and to learn about it your mind must also be fluid, move with it.
Q: Yes. Yes.
Q: Yes, but to learn, I state something; I state I am always thinking…
K: Ah, not you’re always thinking. I want to learn about myself — say for example — and I don’t know about myself; it’s such a vast machinery going on, changing, static, non-static, moving — you know? — it is a tremendous thing going on inside me; I want to watch it; I want to learn about it. Either I learn… either I come to it with a great deal of knowledge about it, then it ceases to be learning… then it’s no value.
Q: What we call *préjugé.* [prejudice]
K: *Préjugé, c’est ça*. [Prejudice, that’s it] No, what we are trying to discuss is concentration and attention. Concentration is a strain.
Q: In that sense…
K: In that…
Q: …if it is not a separate fact, it is the result of the will.
K: Yes. Right. It is a strain; it is an exclusive process: building a wall round yourself and concentrating on that.
Q: Yes.
K: But if you are learning about that, you have to be aware of all the things that are happening.
Q: Yes; but the danger is to be dreaming about it, not…
K: Ah no, no; then you’re not attentive.
Q: Yes, of course.
Q: Isn’t it so that we are what we call being very interested in something, taken up by that thing? I think we don’t make this distinction enough between doing a thing with your whole being, then you forget yourself; then it’s not concentration.
K: No; I think it’s much more complicated than…
Q: For an example, of the spectacle that you spoke about the other day; if you are completely taken by a theatre play, I think…
K: Ah, *oui*, *oui*. [Yes, yes.]
Q: …it’s the same; you are concentrated without attention. That’s…
K: That’s it.
Q: *C’est la même chose*…[It is the same thing…]
K: … *Comment?* [… What ?]
Q: *C’est la même chose d’être concentré par son travail ou d’être concentré dans un spectacle ou l’enfant avec ses jouets c’est la même chose. [*It is the same thing to be in a state of concentration in his work or to concentrate in a public show, or for the child with his toy, it is the same thing.]
Q: But the child is certainly learning with this toy; it’s not only taking…
K: No, no; that’s not the point. We have brought…
Q: He’s observing this toy.
K: We brought in the toy because the question was, if I remember rightly, being absorbed by the play or by the toy; and I was showing… being absorbed by something is an escape from.
Q: When it is an escape? It is always an escape?
K: Not… may be, may not be; that’s not the issue.
Q: Sir, may I ask you something? My problem would be the other way round, because when I work, it seems to me, I learn because my mind is freer. And as soon as I stop working, in everyday life, in every day what I do, is crowded by memories and I find, well, I’m happier when I work than when I don’t work.
K: Quite, quite.
Q: And it’s very strange.
K: Well, I think that’s fairly simple, isn’t it; not that… I mean… Ah? There you have escaped from yourself…
Q: Is it an escape?
K: I mean, there you’re quite happy, relieved, without any strain; and the work, you keep on doing it. And the moment you stop working, all the thoughts — which you have put aside for the time being while you are working — crowd in. That disturbs. No?
Q: It may be, yes.
K: No; it’s not *maybe*. It’s not…
(Laughter)
Q: I don’t know, because when I work I’m not confronted always with the same problem; I learn as I work.
K: Yes.
Q: And I can’t say it’s a concentration; it’s rather that my mind is freer to…
K: No… You see, in concentration is involved will. That is what we are trying to get at, isn’t it? In… when I say, ‘I will do something,’ it is a determination. And what is the function of will in action? That is the real… I don’t know if you want to go into it.
Q: The function of will in action?
K: Yes. What is will…?
Q: What the use of will?
K: What’s the use of will in action? What is the importance or the function or the nature of will when there has to be action?
Q: Will has to be employed towards an idea or an ideal if it wants to be concentrated. Will is a way of purposely eliminating problems or…
K: No sir; wait a minute, sir. When do we say… when does will begin to operate?
Q: When I want.
Q: When it’s time to do something in the future.
K: The future is now when you have determined to do something.
Q: Yes.
K: It’s not only in the future; you are doing it.
Q: Yes, but not at the right minute, if…
K: No, but the right… when you are doing, that doing may be the result of a previous will.
Q: Yes.
K: It’s not action in the future only, but also the action in the present which you have determined to do yesterday.
Q: Yes. Yes, but they are two different sort of will. I can decide to do something very normal yesterday and have the will to do so: to go my office, for instance, or to do something very precise; so it’s not in that sense that you mean will. It’s…
K: No… altogether, altogether, altogether.
Q: It’s the same thing.
K: It’s the same thing; altogether, not just two different or half-a-dozen wills. What is the function of will? Why does one need to have will? I’m not saying we should be namby-pamby, we should be driven, but I’m asking what is the necessity of will.
Q: To have a direction.
K: Wait! Wait.
Q: *Avoir un but?* [To have a goal?]
Q: (Inaudible).
(Pause)
K: Now, before you go into that, what is will? I will learn a language. I will do this; I won’t do that. I will go tomorrow to the country. Will, will; what is the structure of will?
Q: It’s a protection of a decision.
K: Now, what is…? Go behind it, sir. Yes. I mean, will, decision; we said I will go; I won’t go.
Q: It’s a desire.
K: Now, what… go further into it.
Q: It’s a movement now; it’s an expression of…
K: Don’t stop there, please. (Laughs)
Q: Desire to be something else, to modify.
K: Desire; what do you mean by *desire*?
Q: A thought. An idea.
K: No, desire is not an idea. I’m hungry and I desire food.
Q: It’s a reaction.
K: Yes, go… *Avanti*; go on, please.
Q: Something that is not satisfactory, that you want to modify.
K: No, no; not only that, madame. *Écoutez*. Go into it. So we are trying to find out what is desire, isn’t it… what is will. Somebody said it is the process of desire or the culmination of desire in something. What is desire?
(Pause)
Q: It’s energy.
K: Energy?
Q: Yes.
K: How does that energy come about?
Q: Because you exist.
K: Ah no, no; no, no, no, no; that’s not… Go into it, sir, a bit more. How does that energy, which takes the form of desire wanting that?
Q: No, well… I mean, I just understand very well because I think desire can be a problem or not. If I decide to go to the country tomorrow, it’s not a problem.
K: No, I’m not talking of a problem; I’m talking what is the… how does desire arise? How does desire become will?
Q: When we’re not satisfied with what we are.
K: No… No, that is, we are not… we are examining what is desire, not with what we are satisfied or not satisfied; the thing itself. I desire a car, I desire food, I desire the country, I desire… dozen things; we are not discussing the object of desire, but desire itself. The object of desire can vary and does vary from day-to-day, from period-to-period, but the thing… desire itself may not vary at all.
Q: We wish to possess.
K: I… the desire to possess is the outcome of the object. I desire to possess that. But you’re not investigating or inquiring what is desire; then we can say the objects of desire vary and they contradict. How does this energy called desire come?
Q: Before it has an object. (Inaudible)
K: Ah, and can you — wait a minute, sir — can you separate the object from the desire, or are they both simultaneous?
Q: Yes.
K: I see that clock; the clock awakens the desire. It’s a beautiful clock, and I want that desire; so desire is not something separate from that. Ah?
Q: No, but desire is pre-existing to that fact, because it was not possible to desire this clock if desire were not pre-existing.
K: But… Wait sir; if I… it may not be a clock, it may be a house, it may be a woman, it may be a piano, it may be… a dozen things; are the two things separate, or are they one, and then I say to myself, ‘I desire that’? I don’t know if you’re following what I mean.
(Pause)
Q: Only I feel it is a curious thing because if you see this clock — excuse me, about the clock, what was an example taken — it is the element of this clock leave the void inside yourself and the desire is to fulfil this… — not to fulfil — to fill this void, in a way.
K: Ah… no, that comes much later as a problem; when it is a problem, then I begin to discover the whole issue. But I see a clock, and I want it.
Q: There is not yet frustration.
K: No, no; there is nothing: no problem, no issue, no voidness; I just like that. Then if I can’t get it and if I insist on getting it, then I steal and I do various things, then it becomes a problem.
Q: Then I desire it, identify myself to that clock, for a moment.
K: Not… No, don’t… if I may use that word *identify*… means something: I identify myself with the watch. I don’t. I just want it. For goodness sake, let’s keep…
(Laughter)
Let’s keep it simple. I just want that watch. There are two things involved in it, isn’t it, sir: the object awakens desire — that’s one thing — but I’m always in a state of desire; I want…
Q: (Inaudible)
K: I want things, which give me pleasure. That watch will give me pleasure, the possession of that watch, because I say, ‘By Jove, it’s a valuable watch; I’d like to have it.’ I see…
Q: Yes, it’s complicated anyway.
K: No, no. (Laughs) Oh no, it’s not complicated. I see you haven’t…
Q: It seems to me, when I see something and I want it, when it’s, for instance, if I see some clothes for a woman, I feel more alive in relation to that thing than in relation to clothes for a man, which I wouldn’t want.
K: Naturally; naturally.
Q: So it seems to me that desire is something which is keeping me alive, is…
Q: I suppose that it’s the will to be, because desire is in relationship with life.
K: Sir, but we are making it terribly complicated; let’s keep it simple for the moment. I just want to know how desire — that energy which I call desire — arises, and then I will know what to do with it. I don’t say it… I’m identifying myself with it, it’s life, it is not life; it is… it must be, it must not be; it is right to have desire… and so on, so on, all the complications arise afterwards; but I just want to find out how desire comes.
Q: From perception of something.
K: What?
Q: From perception.
K: Yes. You see and then there is a sensation and desire. Right?
Q: Yes.
K: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute; stop there. Does that happen? I see that clock, that watch in the window, my eyes see it, then there is a sensation of possessing it, then the pleasure of possessing it. Right? So there is a desire when I see that, that watch, there is a reaction. If it was something which I don’t want, then I don’t even look at it. Or I’ve had a pleasure, a remembrance…
Q: Or I want to have a pleasure; it’s the same.
K: I’ve had one, and I want it repeated.
Q: So it’s a question of imagination; I may change that… I must…
K: No… (Laughs)
Q: I can go on with this pleasure; I think; it’s a belief.
K: No sir; no sir, it’s a little more complicated. Wait; first stop… let’s understand what desire is and then we can explore how desire… why desire has continuity, a duration and where thought comes into it and all the rest of… we can go into that; but first we must understand how desire comes into being.
*Q: Mais si je désire tel objet et donc tel autre c’est que forcément cet objet coïncide avec une certaine mémoire que je veux satisfaire.* [But if I desire one object or another it is evidently because this object coincides with a specific memory I want to satisfy.]
*K: Surement. Et cela vous donne le plaisir.* [Surely, and that is giving you pleasure.]
*Q: Donc le désir c’est pour continuer ce que …* [So desire is to continue…]
K: Wait; now, we see that; we see that; we see how desire arises. Then what gives it duration, continuity?
Q: Well, I think first there is a perception and then the desire arises…
K: Quite; we said that. Now…
Q: And then I keep thinking of it.
K: Ah, *voilà*! *Voilà*. [Ah, that’s it. That’s it.]
Q: (Inaudible) …pleasure, so I think of it.
K: You keep thinking about something that gives you pleasure…
Q: Surely.
K: …in relation to that watch.
Q: Yes.
K: So that watch… seeing, desire, thinking about it gives it a continuity. Right? So when thought comes into operation with desire, with regard to desire, desire then has a thing that lasts. Right? But if the thought didn’t interfere, then it’s very simple.
Q: Yes; and how to do that?
(Laughter)
K: Ah wait, wait, wait! Not *how* to do it. If thought doesn’t give it a duration, a continuity, then what happens to desire, which is pleasure?
(Pause)
Q: *Il meurt, non*? [It dies, doesn’t it ?]
K: You watch it; you have pleasures from which you get your desire, don’t you? I mean, sorry… you know certain desires which give you pleasure and you know that pleasure has a duration, has a continuity, and you know thought gives to desire a continuity, and if somebody… as we said yesterday, see what happens to desire when thought doesn’t continually think about it. Look sir, I see a car in the road…
Q: It is no longer desire, anyway.
K: Ah no, wait; it is still… Do… I see a car in the road, a beautiful car; I look at it. It’s very nice, very clean lines, and — you know? — all polished and everything (Laughs) and I look at it. The reaction is right; if I didn’t look at it and get a reaction, I would be paralysed to everything around me; I would be blind. Right? So I see it; there is a perception, a sensation, a thing which says desire — desire which we call… this whole process.
Q: Yes.
K: Now, thought says, ‘By Jove, I’d like that; I’d like to have it. It would be nice to drive that, go into the country and let out.’
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Wait; no. No, don’t… Just see what is taking place, sir; you’re jumping… ‘I’d like to get into it, go into the country and press the pedal down; go as fast as you can! How nice.’ Now, what has happened? The perception, sensation, desire, then thought comes into it and says how fun it would be to have it and run, make it run. Right? Now, if the thought doesn’t come in, what happens? I can look at that car, react, and that’s the end of it. I don’t know if you’re following…
Q: *Sans laisser aucune trace ?* [Without leaving any traces ?]
K: *Aucune trace, c’est ça.* [No trace, that is correct.]
Q: (Inaudible)
Q: *C’est-à-dire le voir un point s’est tout.* [That means just see it and nothing else.]
K: *Voilà*! [That’s just it.]
Q: No, because it begins again.
K: No, no, no, no; never.
Q: If you see another car…
K: No.
Q: …another thing…
K: No, I know this; I’ve done this so often. Just watch it; you’re not doing it. You see something very beautiful, so-called beautiful.
Q: A mountain, for instance.
K: A mountain, a woman’s face, a child, whatever it is, you see something very beautiful, and you react. The reaction is right; if you didn’t react, you’d be blind, you’d be paralysed, but the conflict begins when thought says, ‘By Jove, I’d like to have that.’
*Q: Aussi la pensée vous empêche une réaction normale, hein ? Là aussi…* [Thought is also preventing you to have a normal reaction, isn’t it ? Here also…]
*K: Oui, c’est ca, c’est ca.* [Yes, that’s it, that’s it.]
*Q: Mais elle est tellement rapide.* [But it so fast.]
*K: Tellement rapide, tout ca. Oui, oui je sais.* [So fast, all that. Yes, I know, I know.]
*Q: C’est très difficile.* [It is very difficult.]
K: But… No, no! Moment you say, ‘It is difficult,’ you have blocked yourself.
Q: You see, for instance, I see the mountain, I think it’s beautiful; I have a right reaction. I don’t desire this mountain…
K: No, because it’s… (Laughter) But if you see a rich man going by in a car and you want to be that rich man, in that rich car.
Q: No. Just that example of mountain is clear.
K: Ah… because you can’t get it.
Q: No, but I…
Q: But can’t you feel a desire for something without any object?
K: Then do you? Is it desire then?
Q: I wonder if it is. Say for…
K: No, no, madame, *écoutez* [listen]; first let us… Don’t go to the next question, but let’s settle this first. Sir, look: you smoke — I don’t… I’m just taking that as an example, not talking of you personally, please — you smoke; it gives you a certain pleasure.
Q: *Oui*.
K: *Oui*. It has become a habit. It began as a spontaneous thing; because everybody was doing it round you, you started. Now, how do you stop something immediately?
Q: When I really understand it is wrong.
K: Ah…
Q: Because…
*Q: C’est la pensée qui intervient.* [It is thought intervening.]
*Q: C’est la volonté, là.* [It is will here.]
K: *Non, non.* [No, no.]
*Q: Non c’est la pensée.* [No it is thought.]
*Q : Voilà, voilà.* [That’s it, that’s it.]*Q: Avec la volonté c’est pas finit.* [Will prevents it stopping.]
(Pause)
K: So, you see, sir, go into it; very interesting; that is, desire, perception, sensation, desire; desire has… thought gives it a duration, a continuity, and then says, ‘I must have more or less’ — the battle begins. Right?
Q: Yes.
K: Now, if I am aware of the whole structure of thought which interferes with desire, then I see a car and react. But there is not all the rigmarole round it.
Q: Well, I see but it’s…
K: Ah, wait; no, you don’t do it, because it requires a great deal of going into. Look, wait a minute; let’s move from the car. In this society — France or in America or Russia or wherever it is — in this society ambition is regarded as a great thing.
Q: Yes.
K: (Inaudible)
Q: Officially.
K: Not only officially; privately, in your own family. (Laughs) You encourage your wife or your child, your mother; everybody is doing this: ‘You must beat that boy or that man and get that…’ — you know? — there is ambition. Now, ambition implies conflict.
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Conflict, ruthlessness, expressing yourself at any cost — you follow? — and the battle begins. Now, ambition is pleasure; you derive from gaining that which through ambition you have: a position, a money, a prestige; it gives you pleasure; that pleasure in a society which says that it is right. I don’t know if you’re…
Q: Yes, yes.
K: Now, right?
Q: Yes; right.
K: I see that; it is… So, inwardly, I like that pleasure: to be a great man, to be a great success.
Q: Unless you understand it is…
K: Wait; no; just see what happens. I see that. I see what ambition, in any form, does: corrupts; it is ruthless, it is violent, it can never produce peace inside or outside. Right? I see all that, but yet I continue with being ambitious. Right?
Q: Yes.
K: So intellectually, verbally, I see all that, but actually I’m ambitious.
Q: That’s true.
K: Right. So there is a contradiction. Right?
Q: It’s a conflict.
K: It’s a conflict — now, wait a minute — and you see conflict is destructive. Be ambitious and be done with it — you follow what I mean? — like everybody is; the holy saints and everybody is ambitious. All right, go the whole hog, right to the end of it. But the moment you say, ‘By Jove, is it right, is it wrong?’ you begin. But also inherent in ambition is conflict, and you see conflict inherent in ambition and you see conflict in society — man against man and all the rest of it — so you say, ‘Now, why can’t I stop it?’ Because to have peace, a peaceful existence in life, peaceful society, ambition is very destructive. But it’s encouraged by everybody. No?
Q: Yes.
K: So how will you put an end to it immediately — if you want to; I’m not saying you should. (Laughs) So you have to inquire into the pleasure which ambition gives. Right? Right sir?
Q: Yes.
K: That pleasure is the desire which has been awakened by seeing what ambitious people have got: money, position, applause — you know? — you know all the rest of it. So you want that too.
Q: Not all the time but some of the time.
K: Ah, not… Most of the time; it’s only very rarely you say, ‘To hell with it.’ So unless one understands the whole nature of pleasure, you may talk about a peaceful life and a peaceful existence, a civilised society and all that nonsense, you will still be ambitious.
Q: Right.
K: Perhaps it’s not what you want to discuss.
Q: Yes, personally.
(Pause)
You know, but to understand the process of thinking about desire…
K: No, not thinking about desire: thinking which gives strength to desire.
Q: Yes; but… *Comment dit-on…* [How do we say…]
K: *Dites en français.* [Say it in French.]
*Q: (Inaudible) nous passons notre vie à penser, toute la journée des pensées se succèdent dans notre esprit. Mais qui dit pensée, dit image, on pense par image, on voit une succession d’images.* [We spend our lives thinking, all day long thoughts follow one another in our minds. But when we say thought, we mean image, we think by image, we see a succession of images.]
K: *(Inaudible) c’est ça*. [(Inaudible) that’s it.]
Q: *Bon, c’est un obstacle à comprendre les choses, ces images parce qu’elles sont comme des mots. Nommer est une forme…, est un premier paravent, l’image en est un second.* [Well, it’s an obstacle to understanding things, these images, because they are like words. Naming is a form of …, it is the first screen [filter], the image is the second.]
K : *Oui.* [Yes.]
Q : *Alors est-il possible de penser sans images ?* [Is it possible to think without images ?]
K: Is it possible to think without word? Word being symbol, image…
Q: Image, name and…
K: …the whole structure. I say, ‘Yes,’ but I mean… or I say, ‘Don’t think at all.’ (Laughs) Sir, what is the function of thought? What is thought?
Q: It’s obviously a necessity to have this…
K: *Avanti*; *allez*, *allez*.
Q: Without thinking, you cannot be.
K: Go on, sir. No, I didn’t say *to be*. What is thought?
Q: It’s a permanent relation between yourself and things.
K: What is thought, sir?
Q: *On est en contact avec le monde extérieur par les sens et ces perceptions sont transformées par des pensées.* [One is in contact with the external world through the senses and these perceptions are transformed by thoughts.]
K: *Oui,* but what is… You’re still… you haven’t… Now, wait a minute; wait a minute. I ask you what is thought; I put you a question — what happens?
Q: I seek the answer. K: Ah… All right, you get an answer. How did you get the answer?
Q: *En faisant appel à ma mémoire.* [By using my memory.]
K: Hein? [What ?]
Q: Certainement, oui. [Certainly, yes.]
K: N’est-ce pas? Ce que vous avez vu, vos expériences, tout ça. [Isn’t it? What you have seen, your experiences, all that.] The bundle of memories. Right? You… the bundle of memories react to the question and the reaction you call thought. Right?
Q: *Oui*.
K: Now, go on… (inaudible); go into it.
Q: I have not solved the problem…
K: No, no, we’re not discussing the problem; the problem…
Q: The problem is a question, you know.
K: Yes.
Q: I mean that, in that sense, a problem.
K: What is thought? And where do you need thought and where you don’t need thought?
Q: It’s a reaction.
K: Reaction to memory.
Q: Of memory and to life; if I have a lion and myself, I have to think because I must go…
K: Ah no! No, no, no, no; if you have a lion, you react immediately; there’s no thinking. Or you might have…
Q: If I see a tree, I can think to go to this tree.
K: No, no, no; I’m talking of the reaction, not the escaping from the lion. No, you don’t go into it.
Q: This reaction is not thought, anyway.
K: No; it is thought that has been thought about, conditioned into you; you know, it is impressed on you that it’s a danger and when you meet a lion your reaction is to jump immediately, because of your previous conditioning with regard to danger. If you come suddenly on a precipice, you stop; the stopping is the result of previous injections of thought. (Laughs) So where do we use thought and where is thought not necessary?
Q: When I use thought and when it is not necessary to do so?
K: *Comment*? Q: I didn’t understand…
K: Ah, you didn’t understand my question. We say we are using thought all the time; are we?
Q: A great part of the time.
K: Great part of the time — what is that?
Q: Sometimes…
K: Thinking about the past…
Q: Always making relations between things.
K: Relations between the past and the present and the future; between you and me, and so…
Q: And so on, about problems…
K: Relationships, problems, everything; thought is continually operating; and do you know any period when it doesn’t operate?
Q: Very few time…
K: Why? When?
Q: When you don’t desire anything.
K: No…
Q: If you are… I don’t…
Q: Yes, I think it’s a fact; sometimes you don’t think, but…
K: When? When does it happen?
Q: When we are put in a very strong challenge and our life or something is depending on it and we have a quick reaction…
K: When there is great crisis.
Q: Great thing; yes.
K: When you are face-to-face with a great crisis…
Q: And there is immediate reaction.
K: The immediate reaction is paralysis — right? — your whole being is paralysed; you stop thinking because the thing is too much of a shock. As the shock wears off — it may last a minute or it may last… — then you begin thinking about it. You call me a liar; I’m shocked by it. I may be a liar, but I don’t want you to tell me.
Q: Yes.
K: And I close up. So either a shock stops, for a second, the whole machinery, or a shock which is pleasurable or painful, or a crisis in which I am. I don’t know…
(Pause)
What are we discussing?
Q: Thought and from… coming from desire.
K: No; no sir. We said thought gives continuity to desire; and we said, ‘What is thought? What is thinking? What is all this tremendous machinery that man has built?’
Q: It’s a permanent movement of the mind.
K: Yes, all right; it’s a constant movement: thought creates the future and therefore is afraid of the future; thought gives continuity to pleasure and therefore the conflict of wanting pleasure or keeping with it and the fear of not having it; so thought is doing all this: being ambitious; ‘I must be like him; I must not be like him; I must go to the *Elysée*; I must…’ You follow? (Laughs) *Vous savez*? All thought, thought. ‘Must be famous.’ So I say to myself, ‘Why is this thought so active?’ I’m not condemning it; I’m not saying it’s right or wrong; why is this going on and on and on and on?
Q: I don’t know… (inaudible)
K: We’re going to find out, sir; wait, wait. Apparently, that’s all we know: the image, the symbol, the word, the name, sensate values, and think, think, think, think — that’s all. And it’s all… and when I look at it, I say to myself, ‘My God, I’m nothing but a lot of words.’
Q: That’s true.
K: A lot of names, a lot of images and symbols and… what? I’m a dictionary of words, dictionary of experiences, collection of experiences, the past and thought, thought, thought. Right?
Q: Right.
K: How superficial it is. Ah? Superficial, in the sense, do I live on words? Do I live on symbols? We do. Do I live on ideas, images, pictures, future, what I should… all created by thought? So I am a mere entity of tremendous reactions. Pavlov’s dog intensified. (Laughs)
So I say to myself, ‘I see all this and if thought stops, what happens?’ Not, ‘I don’t know how to stop it’ — I’ll find that out — ‘What happens if I don’t think?’ I’m frightened because that’s the only thing I know. It’s like saying to a housewife, ‘Don’t think about the kitchen’ — you follow what I mean? — ‘Don’t think about the babies, don’t think about washing dishes. For God’s sake, all your day filled with that. Don’t think about it,’ she will feel a little bit frightened; say, ‘What am I to think about?’
Q: (Inaudible)
K: So she will then go to church, then read a novel… (inaudible) …something to be occupied. So I say to myself, ‘By Jove, what am I doing? The mind wants to be occupied, otherwise it’s lost.’ Right?
Q: Is occupied.
K: And lost.
Q: Yes.
K: And I say, ‘All right, I’m going to find out what it feels like to be lost.’ Or it’s only an idea of getting lost — you follow what I mean? — it may be still thought saying, ‘By Jove, look what will happen to you if you don’t keep being occupied.’
(Pause)
You know, if you don’t go to office every day, suddenly, you don’t know what to do. And because you don’t know what to do, that’s what is happening; a man who retires at sixty-five, he dies pretty quickly, or fifty-five; he just goes to pieces.
(Pause)
Q: We can say that to think is a habit; you think outside the necessary…
K: When it is necessary, I think.
Q: And when it is not necessary, I think also.
K: I don’t think. Why should I think when it’s not necessary?
(Laughter)
Ah, no, no; no.
Q: We think all the time.
K: That’s what I’m objecting to. I say why should I think when it is not necessary. If I can discover when it’s not necessary and therefore not think, then I may have a whole different meaning to thinking altogether.
(Pause)
I mean, our trouble is — isn’t it, really? — this incessant activity of thought: conscious, unconscious, during sleep, waking, dreams, no dreams; you know, living in the past, wishing the past, no… frightened of the past; tomorrow, and, ‘No, I don’t want tomorrow; I’ll try and live only today.’ You follow?
Q: Sometimes it’s slower than other times… (inaudible)
K: Of course. Fast, slow, at a different level, at a… and so on, on and on and on. So the machinery is in perpetual operation. Now, wait a minute; what feeds the machinery? What is the benzene (laughs); what is the thing that keeps it alive? Obviously, food…
Q: The need to be.
K: No, wait; don’t say need.
Q: Desire.
K: No, don’t say… inquire anew. I need to think. I need… this machinery must go on if I want food; job, in order to get the food, shelter. Right? But the problem is arising also — if you have read… if you know something about it — in America they are saying the computer and the automation is going to take over. And the economists are saying that man will be freed from work. It is not an utopia; it’s going to take place.
Q: Yes, but…
K: Wait sir; it’s not… don’t doubt it, it’s taking place; because they’ve got computers that’ll start the whole factory going, with very few men; and the whole factory will be kept going through automation, through electronics, so very few men will be needed; and what is going to happen to the whole lot of man, to the masses of people? Ah sir, don’t…
Q: Yes, yes, it could be terrible; I can…
K: Ah… (Laughter) It is taking place, sir; you have two days in the week, now, when you’re free…
Q: One and a half; it’s the same.
K: And they’re going to increase that: four days.
(Pause)
So what is… if you’re not going to be occupied with the office, earning a livelihood, house, home and all the rest of it, what are you going to do? Sir, this problem is coming; don’t fool yourself; it’s there. Either you’re going to be entertained — radio, television, (inaudible in French) — you know, the whole thing will begin; the church will take over. Q: Yes, but you can work without necessity, I think; it’s not… K: But it is… You’re not accepting the fact that that necessity may be taken over by machinery.
(Pause)
No, we come back, sir; this is really a tremendous problem that’s going on in the world.
Q: (Inaudible)
K: What’s going to happen to man when he’s going to have leisure? Not two days in the week…
Q: Complete leisure.
Q: Seven.
K: Even five days in the week; what’s going to happen to him? Sex can’t go on everlastingly, so he’ll be removed to pleasure of different forms. So we… which is, we are saying the money… (inaudible)
Q: *Il y aura moins de compétition. Il apprendra à faire moins de chose.* [There will be less competition. He will learn to do less.]
K: *Oui*, *oui*, *bien*; *alors*, *quoi*? *Après quoi*? *Si*. [Yes, yes, but so what? Yes.] No… Take away everything that’s keeping him occupied now: going to the office from ten to five and then golf, tennis, whatever he does afterwards; take away the whole thing from him, what will he do? Kill each other?
Q: Probably.
*Q: Oui.* [Yes.]
*Q: Pourquoi? (Inaudible) névrotique comme dans les pays scandinaves où déjà on parle beaucoup de ça.* [Why ? (Inaudible) neurotic like in the Scandinavian countries where they start to speak about this.]
*K : Voilà, c’est juste.* [Yes, that’s correct.]
*Q: Oui, mais en France le problème n’est pas posé encore.* [Yes, but in France the problem has not yet arisen.]
*K: Non, non.* [No, no.]
*Many: (Inaudible)*
*K : Il n’est pas posé mail il existe.* [It has not yet arisen but it exists.]
*Q: Mais est-ce que l’homme ne peut pas rien faire?* [But can’t man do nothing ?]
*Q: Mais est-ce que c’est dans le fait de faire certaine choses ou dans la façon de les faire profondément?* [But is it in the doing of certain things or in the way they are done at the deeper level?]
*K: Non, madame; ça existe maintenant. Qu’est-ce que vous faites avec votre loisir?* [No Madam, it happens now. What do you do with your free time ?]
*Q: On va à la campagne, on regarde les arbres, on est tranquille, on dort au soleil, pas de problème.* [We go to the countryside, we look at trees, we are quiet, we sleep under the sun, no problems.]
K: And during those moments, what is happening to thought? That’s what we are discussing. That is, thought is now occupied, whirling around, chattering, chattering, chattering; doing this, not doing that; becoming, not becoming; going to the moon — you follow? — doing, doing, doing; and if suddenly you have an hour — *maintenant* [now], an hour; that’s good enough — what will you do during that hour? Still go on chattering?
Q: Presently, certainly, but if, *si cela viendra petit à petit*… [if it comes gradually…]
K: *Non, voyons*. [No, please.] You’re going to wait for circumstance to dictate what you shall do? Then the communists will take over, then the Catholics will take over. No, no, you can’t… You see, that’s what I’m… If your mind is now active all the time, thought, where is anything new to take place? You follow? If it is on the whirl, whirl, whirl, where…? Ah?
(Pause)
So you begin to ask, ‘Is it possible for thought to stop, to be quiet?’ Not… I know I have to think; thinking is part of life, but it’s also part of life to be quiet. Ah? Quiet; not induced, not forced, not… You follow?
Q: Yes. I understand but, for myself, I think all the time; that’s a fact.
K: I know. Therefore, the mind is never at rest; it’s like a car that’s going on and on and on; soon wears itself out; then you have disease, psychosomatic things happen. Right? So you say, ‘Now, can I… can thought… can there be a period when I’m absolutely quiet?’
Q: *Quand la pensée s’arrête est-ce qu’il y a une entité pour être consciente que la pensée s’est arrêté ?* [When thought stops is there an entity which is conscious that thought has stopped ?
K: Yes, madame, but you are gone a little farther than… We must begin much simpler, nearer.
Q: *Je ne peux pas penser à un état de paix si je pense.* [I can’t think of a peaceful state if I think.]
K: Ah…!
Q: *Voila. Attendez, j’achève. Je ne peux que constater si j’ai beaucoup de loisirs que je suis dans un état d’ennui, ou de vacuité. Donc je ne peux que constater une sorte d’identité entre ma pensée et moi. Mais je ne peux pas …, je ne peux penser la paix comme terme d’imagination forcément.* [That’s it. Wait, I’ll finish. I can only see that if I have a lot of leisure I am in a state of boredom, or emptiness. So I can only see a kind of identity [separation?] between my thought and myself. But I can’t …, I can’t think of peace as only a term from my imagination.]
K: *Bien*. [Right.] That *paix* [peace] is created by thought, therefore it’s no longer peace; so back again.
Q: But this quietness that we want is also a thought.
K: It is; and because you want quiet, you want quiet because of the noise the thought makes.
Q: Yes.
K: And so thought says, ‘I will create a peace in reaction to the noise,’ but it’s still thought.
Q: Yes.
K: Sir, let’s begin right from the beginning. Look at a flower — there is one there — no, wait, wait! Don’t look yet; don’t look. Look at it… — don’t look — can you look at it without word, without thought, without the memories coming into operation: ‘What is that flower? What is its name?’ You follow? Can you look without any thought and yet be alive, not just dreaming?
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Now, you look.
(Pause)
Right? Now, what happened? I’m not giving you a lesson, please; you understand? (Laughs) For God’s sake.
Q: (Inaudible) …it felt like a lesson.
Q: (Inaudible)
K: What?
Q: I don’t need to name this flower or to think about… (inaudible) …I have other thoughts enter the mind.
K: Now, wait. What happens? What happens when you…? Ah! No, I said look. Not about the… not only to look, but to look you can’t have other thoughts; then you’re not looking.
Q: I cannot… I don’t know how to do. (Laughs)
K: Sir, what does it mean to look, to see? You can see, but your mind may be on top of the Eiffel Tower, so it’s not seeing.
Q: Half and half.
K: Yes, it’s not seeing. To see, not only your mind must see but your eyes, everything must see. Otherwise you’re really not looking. So thought cannot look. No, no; do look at it, sir; don’t agree with me. Thought cannot look. Thought prevents you from looking. Right? Ah?
Q: Yes.
K: *Bien*. Then what? So you are never directly in contact with anything, except hunger, sex, a few physical facts, a few physical facts, otherwise you’re not in contact with anything. Because thought is always interfering or thought is somewhere else, which is, you are looking somewhere else and also trying to look here; so there is a contradiction going on, which is a waste of energy, and to look you need energy.
Q: Yes; it’s a fact.
K: Yes; so you say, ‘By Jove, look what I’m doing. I am never alive. I’m always living in a dream world — not a dream world — in a world of ideas, which are rubbish.
(Pause)
So I say, can I look at my wife, my child, my job, my neighbour, the house, the flower without the interference of thought, because then only I can look?
Q: *S’il vous plait Monsieur, puis-je regarder un texte sans penser ? Puis-je regarder un livre… puis-je regarder un texte sans penser ?* [Please sir, can I look at a text without thinking? Can I look at a book… can I look at a text without thinking ?]
K: Ah… Yes… ah, no; that’s quite a… Can I look at a book without thinking? Yes, unless I am learning a technique from that book. I can read a detective story without thinking at all; I have done it. I can go on reading — you follow? — because the memory is in operation of a few words, and no thought. But if I have to learn a language, then I have to… or to learn a technique…
Q: Would the difficulty be that we are confusing with idea, hypnotising ourselves not to think, or to be in the…?
K: Ah no no, no; no, no… No, no, no. I said that; we said at the beginning: thought is necessary.
Q: But we think when it is not necessary.
K: Yes; why should I think when it’s not necessary? Why should this machinery be going on night and day? No, there’s the fear if the machinery didn’t go night and day I’d fall asleep, I’d vegetate. So we find several things in this discussion: that the mind must be occupied: with words, with symbols, with ideas, with activity, with chattering, gossip, desire to be famous, fulfil, not fulfil. ‘I’ll be… I will not’ — you follow? — must be occupied; and if it’s not occupied, it’s dead. Right?
Q: We think… Yes.
K: No… this is what happens. If I’m not occupied, I go to asleep. If somebody isn’t kicking me from outside, I’m asleep.
Q: Or in a dream.
K: Yes; I mean, same thing.
So I depend so much on stimulation: to keep me awake, to put me to sleep, to go to work, to be affectionate, to… — you follow? So then I begin to ask… I see that, and I say to myself, ‘Is beauty, is love stimulation?’
Q: It’s behind words.
K: Ah, no, no. I must find out; not just say, ‘Yes,’ or, ‘No,’ that’s… (inaudible) If I depend on some form of stimulation — apparently I do — then what the devil am I then? Nothing but reaction, which has to be kept going by constant stimulation, either drink, sex, God, society, ambition, self-fulfilment — you follow? — keep going.
(Pause)
I need food — that’s a stimulation — I need shelter, I need clothes; but beyond that, what do I need?
Q: I need affection from you.
K: Ah wait! Do you need affection? When you need affection, you cannot give affection. Sorry. (Laughs)
Q: A human being cannot live only with shelter, food and clothes… (inaudible)
K: Wait, wait; no. So, as he cannot live on those three alone, therefore he invents something else, some other forms of stimulation; and so he’s caught again. You follow? So it keeps going, going, in circles. So if affection, love is a form of stimulation, then in that there is jealousy, hate. Hate and love can’t go together. And yet that’s what we live in.
So as we don’t know what love is, don’t let’s hate. You follow?
(Pause)
Oh, by Jove, that requires tremendous energy. You follow?
Q: When you say die to each minute, it’s simply… only react without thinking.
K: But that requires all this investigation; you can’t just say, ‘I’ll react without thinking,’ it has no meaning.
Q: Yes, of course.
K: To die to hate, without argument. (Laughs) To die to a pleasure without argument. To die to one’s desire, demand to fulfil. Sir, if you know to die to one pleasure, really die, without argument, then you have understood the whole work.
(Pause)
So one must begin right at the beginning, not… You follow? To keep the room inside clean, orderly, without conflict, without argument, without desire, without purpose; just to keep it clean; without become cynical, without bitterness, without despair, with… You follow?
(Pause)
Q: *S’il vous plait, quand vous regardez quelqu’un, je parle en général, pour le comprendre vraiment, pour que ce soit comme on voit une fleur sans effort, il ne faut pas le juger, c’est-à-dire qu’il ne faut pas penser à son sujet, il ne faut pas le comparer à d’autres, à des images qu’on a en soit, mais il exprime lui-même des idées, il a une conception de la vie. Pour comprendre cette conception de la vie, ses idées, il ne faut pas les mettre en face d’autres idées, d’autres conceptions?* [Sir, when you look at someone, I’m talking in general, to really understand him, so that it’s like seeing a flower without effort, you mustn’t judge him, that is to say you mustn’t think about him, you mustn’t compare him to others, to images that you have in yourself. But he himself expresses ideas, he has a conception of life. To understand his conception of life, his ideas, mustn’t we put them in opposition to other ideas, other conceptions?]
K: Sir, why do you want to understand another?
Q: I don’t know.
K: Sorry, sorry. (Laughs) Why do I…? Now, wait a minute; why do I want to understand you or you understand me — why?
Q: *Parce que je veux être rassuré.* [Because I want to be reassured.]
*K : Hein ?* [What ?]
*Q : Parce que je veux … Pourquoi comprendre en général ? Pourquoi essayer de comprendre ?* [Because I want… Why understanding anything ? Why try to understand [anything] ?]
K: Ah! Wait a minute; no, wait. I want to understand you — why? To be assured, as you say; to be more directly in relationship with you; to remove any barrier; to be directly in contact with you — right? — and so on and on. Now, why do I want to? We say… we give these reasons: a, b, c, d, but beyond that, why do I want to?
Q: *Si je veux vraiment aimer quelqu’un il faut qu’il n’y ait aucun obstacle entre les …* [If I really want to love someone there must be no obstacles between…]
K: Ah, wait a minute! Wait, wait, wait, wait. If I love somebody, I want to be in contact with that somebody, and…[recording ends abruptly].